It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Banned In Europe !!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lukefj
I for one shout HURRAH! It's about time politicians stepped up to the plate and protected the lungs of the strong willed who have the ability to refuse cigarettes.



And really it's not that bad.... Sure they will have to get off their ass and go outside, but what's the harm in a little fresh air?? Wait I know... It's not cigarettie enough....


I find it absolutely discusting coming home from a bar and having my clothes reak of smoke as well as my hair.... When i'm drunk I don't want to jump in the shower to get the smoke smell off me so I hit the bed and in the morning the smell is all over my pillow....
Now maybe the US will take a hint and do the same.... Here will be harder to do though with people bitching about their rights.... On the contrary it's our right to be able to go out and enjoy a few beers without inhaling other people's carbon monoxide and other chemicals...

[edit on 2-12-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Yeah, really don't want to have to breathe carcinognic smoke while imbibing carcinogenic alcohol (that's the Next Thing to get banned in bars).

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Chakotay]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus fett
[quoet]1.Its another step in the direction of goverments slowly taking away are free will and our liberty.

Since second hand smoke is beleived to cause disease and death, I'd say that ones right to smoke is superseded by anothers right to live healthily. I think the law gets out of hand sometimes, but I have to admit that people shouldn't have to quite their jobs and change their careers just because some people want to smoke in some places, or don't want to step outside to have a cigarette.



2.Many buissnesses will loose trade from customers who will start eating and drinking more in their own homes just so that they can smoke.

NYC restuarants have had an increase in business since the smoking ban went into effect there. People don't stay home, they adjust.


3.The basic rights of what you should and shouldnt be able to do in your own restraunt and bar should fall directley into the hands of the owner of said buissnes.

i have to admit that its a strong arguement. If a person wants to own a bar where people can light up a cigarette, then they should be allowed to. Of course, they aren't allowed to run opium dens, or even allowed to have patrons smoke other chemicals that are demonstably less deadly than cigarette, so perhaps they should just be outlawed entirely.


4.There will be mass spendature by local goverment trying to implement this law with police officers spending more time trying to catch offenders of smoking in the above "banned" areas than actually out policing our crime ridden streets.

The police don't enforce it, public health officials do. Its not like the smoking bans haven't been done in other places besides england.


5.Police officers are going to be placed in potentially volitile situations

On this, you have another point I agree with, except that again its not cops, its health officials. Infact its the bars and restuarants themselves, because the officials will ususally respond to a complaint 'drop in' to observe non-compliance and fine the restuarant owner.

In NYC, this is thought to have resulted in at least one confrontation in particular where a bouncer ended up being stabbed to death by a patron, who just happened to be trained in some thai knife fighting technique or something.

Overall, smoking was on the decline in the US, and the bans in place in some states and cities was not especially drastic, and generally, after people got used to it, they really didn't care.

However, there have been some who have called for smoking around children to be banned, in particular, its been suggested that anyone with a child in their car not be allowed to smoke, i think one modification requires that the windows be open or something perhaps. Again, its a good arguement. Smoking in a small enclosed space like a car with a kid in it is freeking stupid and dangerous, and its a real danger to the child's health. Again, the individual liberty issue comes up in the extreme in this case.

For that matter, some states in the US have banned hand held cellphones while driving. Very shortly afterwards there was talk about banning any 'figiting or fussing' with radio dials, lighters, anything, in the car. Its another saftey issue. Why should some moron be allowed to fax a note he just wrote to somone else while iming someone else on his blackberry while speeding down the highway and end up -killing- someone. Then again, cars could allways be made safer, why not make the speed limit universally 20, require helmets and 'X' safetbelt type straps in the car too? It'd be so damned annoying and evryone would like like a jerk. Yet, it is -guarenteed- to save lives.


df1

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reverie
The point is, those who don't smoke shouldn't have to suffer the effects of second hand smoke because the rest of you feel like killing yourselves.

Poppycock... If I own a restaurant, I should be able to handle smoking in that restaurant as I desire. If folks like you do not wish to visit my restaurant, you would have that option. I'll gladly put a sign in the window with letters three feet tall stating "SMOKING ALLOWED HERE", so you won't miss it.

I'm sure you will have some trite gripe with that also.
.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Poppycock... If I own a restaurant, I should be able to handle smoking in that restaurant as I desire. If folks like you do not wish to visit my restaurant, you would have that option. I'll gladly put a sign in the window with letters three feet tall stating "SMOKING ALLOWED HERE", so you won't miss it.
I'm sure you will have some trite gripe with that also.



Angry, angry df1!!!

And to that post I say, touche!

And since your so angry about this, maybe you should help out your fellow smoker and open your own smoking restaurant, be sure to breath alittle of the second hand smoke on the food too......Nothing like a pinch of carbon monoxide to add to the flavor.....yum!


XL5

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
They should ban cell phones in cars/suv's and in line-ups at the store. In S. Ont. theres a Wendys that I goto often and after they made it smoke free, no one went there anymore and they can't afford to hire enough help or even keep things fresh. After the freshness became an issue you'll see only 2-4 people in there when before it was 10-20 people.

I also think the people who complain, are the people who drive a minivan, only have one kid and cook 99% of the time, then go in a place and see one or two smokers and complain. Then they never eat there again even though its smoke free or if they do, they complain about the freshness.

I think they should just have vents or certain days and times during the week for smoking. However with all minority freedoms, they go the easy way out and ban, instead of being fair and regulating it since no huge protest will happen.

I don't smoke nor do I like it, but banning is wrong in most cases unless its cell phones and a moving car (death by chitchat) and of course I should not have to endure cancer causing microwave floating about my head and sac's.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
They're banning smoking here in Australia too, I love it! I will never have to worry about disgusting cigarettes and their smoke being everywhere now.

I hope they completely illegalise it, but that would be asking too much, I guess. The best part is they're slowly phasing out tobacco, and phasing in marijuana (nowhere near as harmful as tobacco, even the World Health Organisation agrees on this)!



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Well it's a public health risk.

Should of been banned years ago.


XL5

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:11 AM
link   
The same could be said for cell phones, booze and public rest rooms and any form of stress.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
I'll gladly put a sign in the window with letters three feet tall stating "SMOKING ALLOWED HERE", so you won't miss it.

And you will also agree to pay all the medical bills of everyone whom you employ in your carcinogenic environment? Its primarly a concern for the people employed in restaurants and bars. The usual retort for this is, if they don't want to work in a carcinogenic atmosphere, then they don't have to. Unfortunately people don't have as much choice as to where they work as one would like to think, especially if they are working as waiters and bartenders and such, or in any other sort of 'public places' postion.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

And you will also agree to pay all the medical bills of everyone whom you employ in your carcinogenic environment? Its primarly a concern for the people employed in restaurants and bars. The usual retort for this is, if they don't want to work in a carcinogenic atmosphere, then they don't have to. Unfortunately people don't have as much choice as to where they work as one would like to think, especially if they are working as waiters and bartenders and such, or in any other sort of 'public places' postion.


So, why should his business be any different that any other business out there with "carcinogenic atmospheres"? I know, at least in the printing industries, there are safer alternatives that have been devoloped in recent years, don't see the government pushing anyone into using them...."free market" and all that, ya know...



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
I also think the people who complain, are the people who drive a minivan, only have one kid and cook 99% of the time, then go in a place and see one or two smokers and complain. Then they never eat there again even though its smoke free or if they do, they complain about the freshness.


There's a nice generalization... Isn't it so much easier to lump everybody into the same category... Just so you know, i'm 22, drive a ram, have no kids except a lab and never cook.... sorry to burst your bubble...

I also lived in S. Ontario for 21 years, maybe you would like to tell me what wendy's this was at?? I know they caged off smoker's in tim horton's built a nice glass room for them so they can all sit in there and breath eachother's poison's....

It's the "do what the hell you like as long as your not harming anybody else" idea...

And comparing suv's and cellphones to cigarettes is kind of silly... How many chemicals and poison's float into a closed area such as a bar compared to suv's and cellphones?? sure they have their down's but i'd much rather suck an suv's tail pipe then 50 or so people exhaling and sharing eachother's stank.... But hey, that's just me...




[edit on 3-12-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The comparison of cigarette's to the dangers of alcohol here is completely rediculous. Sure Alcohol is dangerous to your health as are cigarettes. However, cigarettes also harm the health of everyone around you while drinking only really affects those who choose to drink.

Peace,
Lukefj



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
"However, cigarettes also harm the health of everyone around you while drinking only really affects those who choose to drink. "


and those they run over when they drive home from those smoke-free bars!! And well, the extent of the damage done by shs is really quite debatable, in constrast to the damage your typical drunk driver does to the body they run over....which sometimes results in instant death!!
They should have just banned the danged bars. I mean it's just common sense to think that someone pulling into a bar alone plans to drive the car home after the night of partying!! If anyone was taking the drunk driving thing seriously, there wouldn't be half the cars at the bars, and more people drinking soda!!

[edit on 3-12-2004 by dawnstar]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
"However, cigarettes also harm the health of everyone around you while drinking only really affects those who choose to drink. "


and those they run over when they drive home from those smoke-free bars!! And well, the extent of the damage done by shs is really quite debatable, in constrast to the damage your typical drunk driver does to the body they run over....which sometimes results in instant death!!
They should have just banned the danged bars. I mean it's just common sense to think that someone pulling into a bar alone plans to drive the car home after the night of partying!! If anyone was taking the drunk driving thing seriously, there wouldn't be half the cars at the bars, and more people drinking soda!!

[edit on 3-12-2004 by dawnstar]


Again, another moot point as it is already illegal to drink and drive. Personally I think I would prefer the "instant death" you speak of over the slow and painful decay of lung cancer.

Lukefj



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
and those they run over when they drive home from those smoke-free bars!! And well, the extent of the damage done by shs is really quite debatable, in constrast to the damage your typical drunk driver does to the body they run over....which sometimes results in instant death!!
They should have just banned the danged bars. I mean it's just common sense to think that someone pulling into a bar alone plans to drive the car home after the night of partying!! If anyone was taking the drunk driving thing seriously, there wouldn't be half the cars at the bars, and more people drinking soda!!



Are you a smoker or something?? If so, this type of ignorance shows that you have no regard for human health, only ignorance and denial...

Would you smoke around your 3 year old child "if" you had one?

It wouldn't surprise me if you did since you don't care about other people's heath, if your scewing your own up, everybody else should be affected right?? Do you drive slow in the left lane too so you can be the boss of everybody??

Trying to downplay cigarette smoke as if it's no big deal is is discusting..

You can actually sit there and claim your smoking habits don't affect anybody?

Nor do the other 50 smoker's in the same bar?

Making excuses and trying to point fingers elsewhere doesn't and won't negate the facts... They've been proven, face it, your a hazard to those who don't smoke....Open an all smoke bar if it's really troubling you, that way you can ingest not only your smoke, but others as well, i'm sure you'll get way more then your anticipated fix...

[edit on 3-12-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   
ahh....yes, but in the end, if all the evidence was put on the table, it would be impossible to prove that shs was to blame, and not the solvents I breathed in at work 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 six days a week, for years. Just because the evidence to prove the harm the substances that are found in the workplaces of america isn't blasted on the news and brought to your attention on a daily basis doesn't make this not true, or make it's effect in any way less harmful than shs. So, you would be wrong to assume that the cause had anything to do with tobacco whatsoever!



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   
dawnstar....have you been in a cave for the past 50 years? Of course it has been proven that smoken directly harms both the smopkers and those around them!

I did a quick search, here Link educate yourself.

My god ignorance is bliss. time to wake up and come out of your hole.

Lukefj



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
And, I can link you to just as much evidence regarding the solvents, from the epa, and iris sites....just because something has been blasted into the public's conciousness doesn't mean it isn't more dangerous.
If the concern is over the health of the employees, well then I think an explanation should be presented to justify why shs should take precedence over these more harmful substances! outside of....well, those are necessary...because well in the case of solvents, they aren't it would just cost more money to use the alternatives. Beside, when talking about the pollution in regard of industry and our personal habits like driving, there's alot we could be doing buy are. We are chosing to use the same type of arguments that the smokers seem to be here...IT'S JUNK SCIENCE MY DEAR....ALL JUNK SCIENCE. So, leave me alone, you chose your poison, I'll chose mine....and we'll just try to live with the combined effects of everyone's habits!



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Here is some more educational material for you...clearly you have been misguided in thinking that there is no actual proof that second hand smoke causes devastating results.

tobaccofreekids.org...

cis.nci.nih.gov...

www.chestnet.org...

www.lungusa.org...

I think that should be more than enough information to prove my point. You are wrong my friend. Second hand smoke has been proven to directly affect the health of those who inhale it.

Lukefj




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join