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.

 

No Smoking law from today in public places in England, how has it affected you?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Am I ready? Well, not particulary... BUT I can see things from a non-smokers point of view and will oblige with the new law.

Since the non smoking majority have had their way as it where, i'd like to gain support for an anti-obese law to be brought forward. Fast food joints/ supermarkets should have a set of scales at the entrance, everyone should be weighed and those who are classed as above normal should only be able to eat healthy foods and salads, their choice SHOULD be taken away, in theory reducing bed space in hospitals due to weight related illnesses. Obese people should be banned from Mcdonalds and if seen eating anything related they should be fined.

Whos with me?!




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
The Non Smoking law means I will finally be able to go into my local pub after 7 years of not being able to do so.

If people wish to make themselves ill by smoking, thats fine, that is their right
However, they have no right to make me sick.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by duplicity

Originally posted by Ahabstar
And to establish basic laws and collect taxes for the funding of these basic services. Everything else should be held and maintained on the local level such as social services, law enforcement, prisons and such.


If that is the only role of a federal government, doesn't that imply that any human rights are a local matter? If so, then it would be legally "justified" to allow inhumane acts of torture in one area of the country while the population of another has freedom from such acts. If not, then two things have happened: one is that your idea of a federal government is incomplete, the other is the consequence of freedom being national that people have a right to not have harm inflicted on them even by something as "trivial" as second-hand smoke.

[edit on 30/6/2007 by duplicity]


Human rights would naturally fall under universal law at the federal level. But to equate the dangers (that are not fully understood or proven) of passive second hand smoke with torture, habias corpus, slavery, women's sufferage or even the right to trial by jury is just about the most self-centered thought that I think I have read in some time. And if you think a cigarette is dangerous I hope you don't live near a railroad, highway or college chemistry lab. There are chemicals in those places everyday that make mustard gas look like perfume in comparison. I personally have driven loads that could wipeout 10K-20K people in less than 10 minutes if I wrecked in a populated area.

At one time Prohibition was added to the constitution. The idea that no one had the legal right to imbibe alcohol is a moral issue. It is a personal choice, and when done in public does indeed affect others around you. It was repealled, not because it could not be enforced or that people made millions illegally running a "drug" but because no government has the right to enforce morality on its people.

Smoking is unhealthy. But it is also a choice. Just like drinking is unhealthy but a choice as well. But to force others to your thinking by enacting laws (or demanding creation) is a removal of freedom of choice. It is legislating morality on others because you do not like their choices.

Where does it end? Religion? Press? Speech? Walking on the wrong side of the street? Being the wrong race? Having different ideologies in politics? Using a Mac instead of a PC? Despite that bit of sarcasm, there were indeed public places that were non-smoking at the owners choice long before this anti-smoking campaign came into being but it wasn't enough for people that felt that their lives were not somehow fulfilled until everyone must abide by their life choices.

Myself, I am actually a polite smoker. I won't even smoke in a smokers house or car until they light up first. When dining it was usually after ordering while waiting for the meal and after the meal waiting on the check depending on the speed of service. Since the law went into effect, I do not eat out as often as I used to do. If the server takes too long to ask for my order or even to seat me, I leave and go elsewhere now. And when asked why I am leaving I explain I never had a problem with waiting when I could smoke a cigarette and felt comfortable talking with friendly people at the bar or the next table. Now I fear what else they want to take away.

See there is one other element that was not considered. When ostracizing members of society they no longer remain part of society. Meaning, a smoker will care less when bad things happen to others. In otherwords a ghetto mentality will develop because they are shunned. So I doubt I will be stopping to fix someone flat tire late at night because they might get offended instead of thankful when I light up after putting on the spare.

Sorry, but it is not up to the government to make that personal choice for me nor for business owners. Nor is your position, just as it is not my position to make choices for you about your choices in life. Myself, I can't stand gansta rap but can deal with old school hip hop. Partly due to the content of the lyrics and the glorification of social ills but mostly the "music" gets on my nerves. My solution is to not go to places where it is played...everyone is happy. I don't know why such a common sense solution could not have worked on the smoking issue, actually I do...it has something to do with cake and eating it too.

But it just so happens that I have heard what is next on the list, in the US anyways. There is growing talk in DC about regulating talk radio content as there are "too many" conservative right-wing radio talk show hosts and not enough sucessful national liberal radio talk show hosts. Many believe that it was these right-wingers that whipped the public into calling their representatives in DC to express negative support towards the immigration bill. I guess we will just have to start another campaign of incomplete information about the dangers of expressing your opinions to your elected representatives so they can continue representing what they think is good for you unfettered from actually representing your interests. In otherwords leave them alone to do their job instead of the job you sent them to do. I'd help out on that fight but I got to go plan a bank robbery to buy another carton of smokes since they raised the taxes again to offset the loss of revenue from so many ex-smokers. I bet if they put the 300%-700% tax on entertainment you would have had plenty of smoke free establishments, provided they could remain in business. Not that they are doing too hot now as it is since independent studies show that smoking bans cause a loss of proffits of 20%-30% on average for bars and restaurants and 50% losses for bingo halls, pool halls and bowling alleys. Nothing like a 35% job loss rate to protect the health of the workers. But they can always find gainful employment in uh, factories (nope-outsourced), picking fruit (nope-illegal aliens), medical (nope-takes a degree)...prostitution and dealing drugs I guess (not that these are lower health risk occupations).

But I guess that doesn't matter so long as I don't fire up a smoke before leaving a 20% tip. However opinions do not go over well here so I guess you might want to read some facts. second hand smoke facts


SR

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Any form of legislation that promotes discrimination of another person or group or persons, for whatever reason, is inarguably morally reprehensible.

Only one thing is more reprehensible than this and that is some sad individuals that gloat or take pleasure in someone being discriminated against. This is especially so if they wish discomfort upon a victim of discrimination or derive some twisted pleasure when a discriminated person is caused to suffer any discomfort.


Why do I have to put up with your cars passing my house.
Why do I have to put up with diesel trains at the end of my garden.
Why do I have to put up with filthy buses and taxis.
Why do I have to put up with planes flying over.

Food for thought there..If smoking was outright banned if the age was put up to 18 to buying cigs there would be the end of the problem or measure to reduce it instead of creating more problems in the long run.

To all the asthama sufferers even if smoking was banned completely your problem will still exist as i've mentioned already with the other pollutions although i am sympathetic and agree with the ban because everyone should have the equal rights to go to where they please and not be restricted or expect to have there health damaged yet as the more astute people will notice this issue is more about civil liberties than smoking.

What are we to do when the non-smokers are complain about people smoking outside the pubs. What are we supposed to do you know?

When i was in Ireland last year we were sitting outside and two event's like this occured during my stay and i was glad the local's sitting outside told the people who complained to F-off another was going to a pub and finding out you could no longer smoke on the premises because people had complained about not being able to eat outside because of the smokers..anyway the area that was being fought over was next to the carpark anyway...Genuises.

To all the people who are 'YIPPEEE I CAN GO THE PUB NOW' sorry but when your some of your locals close because of lost revenue don't cry and the next thing some of you will be moaning about is the amount of 'undesirable' people who turn up to your local and how they put you off going to the pub...really your a non factor who doesn't contribute much to your local in any shape or form are yous.


Also does anyone else find Ex-smokers on high horses are generally some of the biggest hypocrites ever?

Anyway yippee non smokers the UK is smoke free all the politicans can light up a cigar in celebration seeing there exempt from the law in the houses of parliament.



[edit on 1-7-2007 by SR]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
And to give a contrast in all fairness anti-smoking hype




Please don't hesitate. Drifting tobacco smoke already kills more people than motor vehicle accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, etc. In other words, you are statistically more likely to be killed by your neighbor's tobacco smoke than by his car, his gun, or his AIDS virus.


I found that to be just too funny for words. That people actually believe that #. I means seriously. Oh, but the best part is that if you want their help on how to get a smoker evicted you have to give them money for their advice which given that quoted statement makes me think that the advice is to start a fire in front of their door with a "carelessly discarded cigarette."

Trust me, if I had an asshat like that in my building he would be more likely to be ran over by my truck, shot by my gun and sorry to inform but there is zero links to smoking and AIDS than to die by my cigarette smoke as both of those things would happen a heck of a lot sooner.

I normally do not advocate direct literal violence. I joke about kicking butts that need kicked but that kind of hysteria represents a clear danger to others. Claiming my rights end where his nose begins is fine. I will tend to agree. But that attitude and ignorance is what the smoker faces in todays society. And quite frankly it is best to remember where the anti-smoker's rights end as well. When it affects others. Funny about that equal ground thing. But the smoking bans over-step those bounds. They directly impact people's livelihoods. And hence, the bans are wrong. And those supporting the bans are wrong. And one day soon, people are going to open a very large can of shut the F up. And when they do, listen and obey because they will indeed back it up with a good old fashioned butt kicking. Because people are people after all and they will only allow themselves to be pushed so far before they push back hard.

Now funny that I started this two part post with smoking is not a civil right. I still believe it is not a civil right. But is odd that anti-smoking is turning it into a civil rights issue by what? Legislating morality. Which is saying what you do is not right for me so it is no longer right for you to continue. And all others that could care less have to suffer for it too, because you said so. Sorry, but even if I never smoked and at one time in my life I was against smoking personally. I see the mentality of the smoking bans as wrong. I don't go to strip bars because I find it boring and pointless to pay to stare at what you can't have, but I'll be damned if I say you can't go if that is what you want to do. Same for prostitutes or drugs. And they both are illegal, but if that is what floats your boat more power to you. I won't give you grief over it so long as you are not reckless about it and are hurting others in the process by spreading STD's or robbing people for drug money or begging me for dollars to put in garder belts of the strippers.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Imagine the trouble outside pubs and clubs.. Drunken confrontations usually occour in waiting spots (toilets, queuing at bars etc) it'l be just another spot where fights will start.. but I guess thats alright because im a dirty smoker, eh?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Oh I'm so glad. I'm a non smoker and can't stand the stench of cigarette smoke and the mess that goes with it.

Last night whilst having to endure a night shift I watched as the dozen or so smokers at work had to head out into the rain at midnight.

Like vagrants, they huddled close together under a makeshift smokers shelter put up by the company, puffing away, coughing and spluttering and complaining about how hard this is for them.

Sorry but I have little sympathy.

I can now actually go home from the pub not smelling like I have a 20 a day habit. Oh and I wont get burns on my arms when I'm clubbing because some idiot can't watch where he is pointing his fag end between drags.

Sorry guys, kill yourselves slowly if you want to, leave the rest of us out of it.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by not_fazed
Sorry but I have little sympathy.


Fair comment. As a smoker I can see where you are coming from.. BUT, is this the start of things to come? The following may as well be put into action too.

1. all fat people banned from buying/ walking into fast food shops.
2. a scheme to stop binge drinking, limiting people to 2 units a day (and probably lead to clubs/ bars and pubs closing)



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
England goes smoke free


Ilove a cigarette and in all honesty I will continue to exercise my human right to consume a legal drug no matter what autocratic laws are in force.
I pay tax on my habit just as other smokers do and I see no reason to comply with undemocratic regulation of my right to smoke.
Many people reading this will assume I am arrogant ... and you would be right in your assumptions!
I will respect the current guidelines and I never have and never will dispose of my butts in public places.
I carry a pocket ashtray and dispose of the butts later.
Controlling the public by dictatorial parlimentary powers is what our ministers do best and this legislation is yet another erosion of our civil liberties.
Who's going to wager their ATS points that the next 'demon' the government will tackle is going to be alchohol?
....and before anyone posts a criticism I do not or ever have smoked anywhere else other than in the open air and in the privacy of my
Englishmans Castle....... Time for a fag.... !



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
1. all fat people banned from buying/ walking into fast food shops.
2. a scheme to stop binge drinking, limiting people to 2 units a day (and probably lead to clubs/ bars and pubs closing)


I can see what your saying, but I'm not sure about the comparisons.

A burger every now and then is hardly a health hazard despite being unhealthy the choice should be left open to everyone. If an overweight individual still decides to stuff his face against better advice then the only people who are harmed are themselves and their families when they croak it.

Binge drinking should be stopped, it should be illegal to consume dangerous levels of alcohol. I would gladly support drunk yobs being breathalysed and fined for endangering themselves and others.

When a person smokes, it affects everyone around them and sometimes non smokers have no choice but to endure second hand smoke. I respect smokers who take their habit away from me because they are showing me respect even if they don't show it for themselves.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by not_fazed]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by not_fazed
Binge drinking should be stopped, it should be illegal to consume dangerous levels of alcohol. I would gladly support drunk yobs being breathalysed and fined for endangering themselves and others.


But thats not solving the problem.. the problem is that alcohol is widely available in many different shops, its usually brightly coloured, advertising is glossed up with lots of clevage and bums/all things sex, and most crucially, that drinking is seen as the British culture, that it somehow makes you more of a "man" than those who don't drink... who can take the most poison before they are sick/pass out! Yay! What fun..



Originally posted by not_fazed
When a person smokes, it affects everyone around them and sometimes non smokers have no choice but to endure second hand smoke. I respect smokers who take their habit away from me because they are showing me respect even if they don't show it for themselves.


There is still no concrete evidence to show that smoking causes lung cancer, so to state that second smoke is "affecting" others is a bit of a bold statement.. it doesn't help that our own government willingly promotes this mindset with clever wording and schemes.

Again, im all for banning smoking in enclosed places, but we kinda had that already didn't we.. no one ever walked into a shop smoking..

It should be up to the owner of the restaurant, pub, club etc whether they allow smoking, not the government. The government does not have the right to tell you what you can and can not do!. And im hearing that there will be fines for cig butts dropped... fines for that, but no fines for dropping other litter, chewing gum, or worst of all, broken beer bottles and cans..

The whole smoking ban thing is a TEST to see how docile and obidient we all are at present...to gauge the publics perception of government taking control of their freedoms and rights.

And so the slippery slope begins..



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by not_fazed
A burger every now and then is hardly a health hazard despite being unhealthy the choice should be left open to everyone. If an overweight individual still decides to stuff his face against better advice then the only people who are harmed are themselves and their families when they croak it.


It still costs the NHS money treating people with obesity related diseases. I DO NOT want to pay taxes for fat people who bring it on themselves. Why should I?

I'm sorry but banning everyone (in my eyes) could be a can of worms. Banning one group of individuals is obviously going to spawn resent in those affected.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   


But thats not solving the problem.. the problem is that alcohol is widely available in many different shops, its usually brightly coloured, advertising is glossed up with lots of clevage and bums/all things sex, and most crucially, that drinking is seen as the British culture, that it somehow makes you more of a "man" than those who don't drink... who can take the most poison before they are sick/pass out! Yay! What fun..


I think challenging abusers of alcohol with a breath test and an on the spot fine is more feasible than removing or changing the branding of alcoholic drinks. I'm talking about the real abusers here, the yobs who start fights and the drunks who can't even walk home, etc. It's at least a deterrent to get them off the streets and out of the parks.



There is still no concrete evidence to show that smoking causes lung cancer


I never said there was although I think there is enough evidence to prove that smoking is certainly harmful to your health.

The smell of smoke, the burning sensation when it gets into your eyes, the way it puts you off your food..etc.

That for me is affecting me enough.



And im hearing that there will be fines for cig butts dropped... fines for that, but no fines for dropping other litter, chewing gum, or worst of all, broken beer bottles and cans..


There is though. Haven't you read some of newspaper campaigns against local councils issuing on the spot fines for littering offenses as petty as a child dropping an ice cream?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
It still costs the NHS money treating people with obesity related diseases. I DO NOT want to pay taxes for fat people who bring it on themselves. Why should I?


I completely agree and cannot emphasize that enough!

It's just too unrealistic to ever imagine a ban for overweight people entering fast food restaurants. The weight issues they experience may not even be their own fault.

It's a hell of a lot easier to identify and ban a smoker.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
As somoene who has lived under this law for several years( california) I am extremely pleased by the rusults. I am glad that i am able to enoy a meal in a resturant without having to breathe in smoke while I eat. Lets face it, Smoking sections don't really work. As a former smoker I found it much easier to quit as well when the enviroment becomes less conduscive the inconvienence outweighs the habit. Now if you light up a cig out here people look at you like you have 4 heads. I'm glad we have this law, and I personally can't wait untill we look back on smoking like we did at Slavery.

How could we have ever been so stupid.


I don't believe cigarette butts a bio-degradable either.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by kleverone]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Well, my local bar has opened a beer gardern in the nick of time, so we can smoke out there (once/if it stops raining)... Not much of a view mind you, just a car park and a brick wall on three sides, but at least we can still enjoy a pint and a cig.

What I'm not happy with is the FACT that we smokers have been paying out of noses on taxed cigarettes, yet the non smokers have been paid a penny towards our habits and have been getting FREE nicotine from our smoke clouds for years and years.*

--

Seriously though, a good friend of mine has a theory that once you pack in smoking, there is more of a chance of catching lung cancer than you would if you continued to smoke. This may be due to the mucous lifting from your lung walls?
He says two of his relatives who packed in smoking actually died of lung cancer years later (middle aged).... yet his dear old grandad who worked in the pits and smoked 60 a day, lived to the grand age of 92...

Hmm...

* Disclaimer - Joke.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
(double post, sorry).

x

[edit on 1-7-2007 by mr-lizard]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by not_fazed
The weight issues they experience may not even be their own fault.

It's a hell of a lot easier to identify and ban a smoker.



Not their fault? Did the fat just jump up on them? Nah, they had to eat and choose not to exercise properly. Six foot tall and 200lbs. myself. And you would never know if I was smoker unless you caught me smoking. I see fat people waddling around dripping rivers of sweat down their massive rolls of fat and reeking of BO everyday. Rather easy to spot and their stench is easy to recognise. Just wait until the smoke clears and you get a good whiff of stale beer and body odor in the pubs. That is, the ones that don't close down. Some of those pubs have been in operation for 200 years or more.

Will historical societies throw money to keep them afloat? Or will they become boarded up with modern ones too? Willing to pay a little more in taxes for people on the public dole that lose their incomes partially or totally due to this ban? Going to provide housing for those that become homeless after becoming jobless in sagging ecconomy as a result? Or the easiest question, going to give higher tips to your servers because of the cleaner air? Go all out and ban smoking 100% in your country. Enact instant death penalty for any caught with nicotine in their system after one year and give manditory urine test for nicotine to everyone. And 50 years later when the cancer rates only go down 5%-10% (if at all-jury is still out on that one) in non-smokers, then what?

Lung, mouth and throat cancer rates in current and former smokers is 1 in 7, that is 14%. Toll booth collectors get cancer from exhaust unless they smoked, then it was from cigarettes. That is how the statistics are gathered. The are 0, none, not one single confirmed death of any kind from second hand smoke. There is not even a record of a person freaking out and getting hit by a bus running away from second hand smoke. Hell, kill all the non-smokers every last one, especially the ex-smokers. No more complaints...problem solved, right? Same logic is it not?

The whole anti-smoking movement is just like the mentality of the ones that beat up gays in the 80's or Jews in the 40's. Smokers are just an easier target and more politically correct with no legal entanglements for being a protected minority. And to risk having someone call a Godwin on me, Adolph Hitler is the most famous anti-smoker in the world and his trusted staff that was forbidden to smoke in his presence celebrated his death by passing out cigarettes and smoked in front of his corpse.
So stick that in your pipe and...well, guess I can't complete that one anymore


[edit on 1-7-2007 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
What I'm not happy with is the FACT that we smokers have been paying out of noses on taxed cigarettes, yet the non smokers have been paid a penny towards our habits and have been getting FREE nicotine from our smoke clouds for years and years.


Cheers dude, you just made my day! I shall go light one up and smoke it with angst!



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
But to equate the dangers (that are not fully understood or proven) of passive second hand smoke with torture, habias corpus, slavery, women's sufferage or even the right to trial by jury is just about the most self-centered thought that I think I have read in some time. And if you think a cigarette is dangerous I hope you don't live near a railroad, highway or college chemistry lab. There are chemicals in those places everyday that make mustard gas look like perfume in comparison. I personally have driven loads that could wipeout 10K-20K people in less than 10 minutes if I wrecked in a populated area.


I said nothing about the comparison between any of those things. I was simply stating the contradiction you could arrive at. I also did not say that railroads or highways were more or less dangerous. You've refuted something I never said.

As for the rest of your post about civil liberties, I couldn't agree more. My post was not about whether or not we should accept certain government legislation that allows an infringement on liberty, but about the concept of defining the federal government in the way that you did.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join