I'm a non-smoker and for many years have had to endure the smell of smokers smelll!!! It really isn't fair that we non-smokers have to endure the stench of cigarette smoke. How would a smoker like it if a non-smoker decided to spray smelly, cheap cologne all over a smoker so that that smoker could smell just like the person who was wearing that smelly, icky cologne? Smoking is gross and it shouldn't be allowed in public places, bars, restaurants, etc. California is pretty good about not allowing smoking in public places. Even on our kids soccer fields, there is NO smoking allowed! Just because a bar is a bar, does that constitude that it should be a smelly place for smokers? When will the non-smokers have rights for clean smelling air? Smoking causes cancer to non-smokers at a rapid rate! Just once, I'd like to meet a heavy duty smoker who actually cares about blowing smoke into the path of a non-smoker. It would be nice if a smoker would learn to be considerate to others. It's as bad as coughing right into someones face!

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I'm sorry, but I am quite sick of the government getting this seriously into our lives.

In America at least, it should be up to the place to decide, and if they lose business because of it and shut down til there are not more, well that's what the market wanted.

We're capitalists boys, we're TRYING to let the market decide. I guess the Federal Government has forgotten that.

It's a state thing - not a government thing. People assume when laws are passed such as "no smoking" laws that it is a government thing, but it's not. That's why some states have them and some don't. It will always be a state by state thing. If all states join in, it will still be a state thing.

Oops, forgot to respond to the topic - I am allergic to smoke so I would vote yes, bann in public places where there is not an option for non smokers. Can't really do anything about out doors but to walk away.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by Godsent]

Originally posted by LostSailor
Second hand smoke.... you have more chance of getting a brain tumor from your cell phone or cancer from drinking tap water. Seriously

Second-hand smoke as a health issue is only half of the issue with smoking indoors in public. It makes my clothes and hair smell and irritates my eyes. If I decide to not partake in this nasty habit then why should I deal with the side effects? Luckily I'm not much of a bar-fly anymore but I can remember leaving a club because I just couldn't bear it anymore. It's really not that absurd to ask someone to kindly go outdoors to get their fix. Smokers think they're losing a right because they are so used to blowing their smoke whereever they please. The restaraunts with the non-sectioned non-smoking area are hilarious but it's a nice gesture.

I want to start off this reply by saying...THIS IS BS!

Im a smoker. I've heard about the smoke bans in NYC and the 8 dollars a pack price. I think if they keep making these utterly ignorant laws on smoking, the governments going to have some riots on their hands.


I mean, c'mon...do people not see how stupid a ban on smoking is in a freakin bar! A pub is the kind of place to sit back, forget your troubles, and have a drink and a smoke. If they take this away from us, theres gonna be trouble.

-TSK

Originally posted by theshadowknows
I want to start off this reply by saying...THIS IS BS!

Im a smoker. I've heard about the smoke bans in NYC and the 8 dollars a pack price. I think if they keep making these utterly ignorant laws on smoking, the governments going to have some riots on their hands.


I mean, c'mon...do people not see how stupid a ban on smoking is in a freakin bar! A pub is the kind of place to sit back, forget your troubles, and have a drink and a smoke. If they take this away from us, theres gonna be trouble.

-TSK

It will never happen because the western world is scared. It fears. It’s lost its balls and does what its told. Its full of ignorant people who look no further then the latest peoples poll

John Cleese once said that he was in a restaurant eating a meal when a couple on the next table finished eating and started smoking. He asked them to stop while he ate and they refused. So he went over and farted at their table while they ate dessert. What's the difference indeed, except farts can't killI suppose!

Yes well that’s utterly stupid just like john cleese. Maybe he should have gone to a non-smoking restaurant.

Oh god and there was me thinking I had posted that Cleese anecdote as a serious argument towards the cause of banning smoking in public.
It seems to me that any time you mention any segregation of smokers they become very defensive. But alas that is the rod of all addicts: denial is a beautiful comfort isn’t it.
The answer is simple. Ban smoking, not make smoking and non smoking sections: that is just laughable, in all public CONFINED spaces. I hate it even in the street when someone walks past me and blows their smoke toward me. But this is not going to give me secondary cancer or make me smell too much, so allow it. If it is in the open air, fine, from an anti-smoker as me I cannot see any argument for banning it except for in enclosed public spaces.
A new and growing argument here in the UK by the anti Ban brigade is that it will only make people smoke more at home, make people stay at home more than go out to bars so children of smokers will have a greater chance of developing secondary smoke related diseases. WOOOH. So the same people who say you cannot ban smoking in the public arena because there is no proof of passive smoking cancer and related diseases are the same people who say if you do ban it more children will get cancer and secondary smoke diseases because smokers will stay at home. Great Logic Again.




[edit on 12-11-2004 by The Teller]

Originally posted by The Teller
A new and growing argument here in the UK by the anti Ban brigade is that it will only make people smoke more at home, make people stay at home more than go out to bars so children of smokers will have a greater chance of developing secondary smoke related diseases. WOOOH. So the same people who say you cannot ban smoking in the public arena because there is no proof of passive smoking cancer and related diseases are the same people who say if you do ban it more children will get cancer and secondary smoke diseases because smokers will stay at home. Great Logic Again.
[edit on 12-11-2004 by The Teller]

Well it seems their jumping on the ban brigades bandwagon for their own advantage. Didn’t mean to offend you with the cleese comment. I agree on the banning of smoking in confined places were people have to be together like transport and workplaces but within places of choice like pubs and clubs it shouldn’t be. I think there would be clubs and pubs that would be non-smoking where all the non-smokers can go that’s fine, there is no reason why this cannot be done. To outlaw it in all pubs and clubs is wrong. Pubs and clubs are places of relaxation where people go to enjoy a vice or two or three.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by kode]

Originally posted by kode

I think there would be clubs and pubs that would be non-smoking where all the non-smokers can go that’s fine, there is no reason why this cannot be done.

Because it is a logistical nightmare, that is why. First you need ALL staff to be smokers and ALL patrons to be smokers. So if a barman say leaves the job and an opening is vacant, the pub needs to employ a new barman. So a non smoking experienced barman goes for the job, is declined the employment, he takes the firm to an industrial tribunal and wins on the grounds of non employment through discrimination. Just like a minority worker or a woman could do. That is just one stick in the spoke of the segregated machine of smoking and non smoking places. Also a friend has a dinner, three of the nine guests don't smoke, but as they have been invited by the host to the restaurant by a smoker it is unseemly to protest about him and all the others smoking. This is one of the social implications of your idea. Basically it comes down to choice, you can smoke and deny the non smoker their rights and possibly kill them or you can smoke in your own environment. Why should the person who has become a victim of the Multi Billion dollar tobacco corporations, a heath hazard to themselves and those around them have ALL the rights? That is the situation now as it stands.
It is tantamount to say I have the right to own a gun, but I also want the right to shoot wherever I want and if I kill a few people with stray bullets throughout my life then that is a worthy sacrifice to pay for my freedom.
Oh and by the way I was not offended with the John Cleese thing, just wanted you to know it was a comic aside to this debate and nothing serious. I too think it is silly, but that is exactly the reason I like the story.

Go ahead people, give the government permisson to strip away yet another freedom from the people. Do you really think the government gives a rats ass about our welfare? If so wouldn't hazardous waste dumped in our waterways, bovine hormones in our beef and dangerous drugs backed by the FDA to name a few, be outlawed as well. Control, control, control. That's all it's about. Open your eyes people!

When i started this thread, i never thought i would have got so much response and in depth replies.

The debate is excellent.

We got lots of opinions, but the concensus seems to be that its the governments who are taking our civil rights in a lot of things as well as smoking.

Much appreciated for all the response..

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Bikereddie]

If I owned a bar or pub in a city that outlawed smoking in such establishments I would charge a $5 fee at the door to enter. It would not be a cover charge but mearly 'dues' to enter my newly established 'private' club. Welcome members.

Originally posted by dollmonster
Go ahead people, give the government permisson to strip away yet another freedom from the people.

So wexactly WHAT is the difference between governments stripping a person's freedom and a government denying another person's freedom?
If they ban smoking they are oppressing smokers rights, if they don't they are oppressing non-smokers rights. So surley it is sensible in theses situations to address the rights of the victims, and potential victims above those whoe cause the problems by smoking.
Okay so let the government allow drink driving, afterall it is oppressing the drinkers right to drive when smashed out of his brain. Or let the government allow companies to pollute the earth killing thousands and creating a potentail enviromental disaster and do nothing about it...oops I don't think that was a good example if you are American.

```

at least all those cigarettes produce light/whitish-gray smoke....

Unlike all those CITY BUSSES outgassing all that dark sinister looking
carbon-soot-smog at each stop light and bus stop, 18 hours a day...
(see, the distractions works...ya'll focusing where your told to focus...)
```

smoking and or porn, cannot be banned...only curtailed
so, just, live-with-it !

Originally posted by The Teller

Originally posted by dollmonster
Go ahead people, give the government permisson to strip away yet another freedom from the people.

So wexactly WHAT is the difference between governments stripping a person's freedom and a government denying another person's freedom?

Why don't they pass a law stating that non-smokers aren't allowed in bars or public places?

Sorry I'm a bit hungover this mornin' and probably shouldn't be posting threads.

But c'mon people I'm sorry my smoking makes you smell bad

That's all second hand smoke is proven to do.

I'm allergic to pollen in the spring time, lets do a mass extermination of plants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 13-11-2004 by LostSailor]

It is politially correct to do anything you want to smokers! Yes it is. No one cares if the cigarette taxes go up. We hear that it is for smokers medical payments, (say what?)

Then we hear it is for education for young people not to smoke. I heard that a good part of the cigarette companies payoff to states were supposed to go for that too.

I know that I least some of those monies just got thrown into the general funds to help balance state budgets.

I did not once hear non smokers complain about the misuse of those monies. In fact I believe they don't even know about it. They believe what the government tells them.

It is so PC to bash smokers now that the government will actually tell you that they need that extra cigarette tax to help balance the budget. And, by the way, this will stop kids from being able to afford cigarettes.

Teen agers and kids are still smoking. It is me, an older American, that cannot afford to smoke any more. I do suspect all the non smokers are clapping their hands and saying "See now you will be more healthy, and it is because of us." So you see I was forced to quit smoking. What happened to my rights?

The bars/restaurants just for smokers wouldn't work because it would put all the no-smoking businesses out of business. That is why we have to have laws to get rid of the smokers bars.

I believe that we got into this PC position because smokers do not want to hurt others. And when the second hand smoke and other medical information began to come out, smokers tried to avoid any situation where they would be hurting someone.

The restaurants/bars that have smokers/non smokers are a joke. Of course the non smoker is still getting the smoke. So, why can't there be smoking/non smoking places of business. Also then the employees could work in the place that was appropriate for them.

Well, I feel better now that I got that off my chest

The ONLY place the government should ban it is in government buildings, Town hall, Police department, well thats the ONLY government buildings we have here but you get the Idea.

The freemarket should decide the rest. It should be up to the owner of the place to decide to have smoking/no smoking or both. I dont smoke myself but that doesnt mean everyone should quit.

I think a lot bigger question is should parents be allowed to smoke in the room with their young kids? If not how would you enforce it?

Originally posted by The Teller
Because it is a logistical nightmare, that is why. First you need ALL staff to be smokers and ALL patrons to be smokers.

No its not i know lots of non-smokers who don’t mind being around smokers. In fact i know non-smokers who are against the ban. I know non-smokers that when i go round their house and say do you mind if i smoke they say no not at all we are not as silly as them hysterical anti smokers.

Some people don’t mind and they would be the ones who work in the smoking bars and clubs them that don’t can go work in a non-smoking establishment.

Originally posted by The Teller
So a non smoking experienced barman goes for the job, is declined the employment, he takes the firm to an industrial tribunal and wins on the grounds of non employment through discrimination.

No he doesn’t because he is told that it is a smoking establishment. If he doesn’t want to work in a smoking establishment then he has no need to apply. Instead he can apply to work in a non-smoking establishment.

Originally posted by The Teller
Also a friend has a dinner, three of the nine guests don't smoke, but as they have been invited by the host to the restaurant by a smoker it is unseemly to protest about him and all the others smoking.

Im sure a night spent with some smokers isn’t going to kill them. Besides they have the choice to say no i don’t wish to attend because i don’t like smoky environments.

Originally posted by The Teller
Why should the person who has become a victim of the Multi Billion dollar tobacco corporations, a heath hazard to themselves and those around them have ALL the rights? That is the situation now as it stands.

The smoker doesn’t have all the rights. Smoking is banned in lots of places. It’s the smoker that has no rights. People have been smoking since the dawn of time you know. It’s not just a moden day phenomenon.

Originally posted by The Teller
If they ban smoking they are oppressing smokers rights, if they don't they are oppressing non-smokers rights. So surley it is sensible in theses situations to address the rights of the victims, and potential victims above those whoe cause the problems by smoking.

The rights of the victims. Victims have a choice whether to frequent an establishment that permits smokers.

The nail in the coffin for smokers will be as i said earlier. The ex smokers as they start to grow there misery and nastiness will force this ban into effect. It will be the same crowd that will agree to ID cards the same crowd that will let the governments stick chips in them. You see this crowd have been pressurized into quitting. They have been beat.

Now, I am an ex-smoker, but I still smoked after cigarettes had gone to $7 a pack, and had been banned in all public places. For the most part it was really no inconvenience, and fewer allergy attacks in bars/venues where there was no longer smoking.
However I live in a neighborhood loaded with night spots, and annoying drunks now take the bar to my sidewalk/doorway. This is not nice at all!!! The noise level is far worse, the drunken mischeif is worse, etc. The smoking ban has created problems for even non-smokers like myself by forcing us to have a bar in our friggin doorways (every night at 3am someone accidentally hits my door buzzer, I get sexually harrassed far more often if walking home late at night, cigarette butts/bottles/cups EVERYWHERE, a few people also decide while they're outside smoking, may as well take a piss instead of going back inside and waiting for the bathroom)!

However, there are some "smoking" bars/lounges, and Those which have smoking rooms. I think this is probably the only compromise that could work. This way, smokers can go to a bar where they are not frowned upon, and non smokers can avoid 2nd hand smoke if they choose to, and the bar would not be moving out onto the streets every night.

Originally posted by kode

not at all we are not as silly as them hysterical anti smokers.

I think the use of the word hysterical has just removed you one place from the legitimacy of your post. Is it hysterical to state the obvious, or hysterical to profusely deny the obvious. Glad to know you are a paid up memeber of the British American Tobacco conglomerate brainwash machine.

Originally posted by The Teller
So a non smoking experienced barman goes for the job, is declined the employment, he takes the firm to an industrial tribunal and wins on the grounds of non employment through discrimination.

Originally posted by kodeNo he doesn’t because he is told that it is a smoking establishment. If he doesn’t want to work in a smoking establishment then he has no need to apply. Instead he can apply to work in a non-smoking establishment.

I trust that if you knew anything about equal rights in the workplace, especially under UK law which is what this thread was initially about, you would know this was wrong. All people regardless of gender, ethnic class, or social scale have the right to apply for the same job.The only premise to deny them the job is unsuitability under experience or skill levels. So any person WOULD have the right to apply for a bar job, and if they were a non smoker and it was proven they were not offered the post because of this could and would be able to sue the company for discrimination. Imagion this happening in every town of every city in the whole country. And even if they did smoke and worked in a smoking enviroment like a bar and developed asmoking related disease could still successfully take action against the bar. This HAS and will continue to happen.

Originally posted by The Teller
Why should the person who has become a victim of the Multi Billion dollar tobacco corporations, a heath hazard to themselves and those around them have ALL the rights? That is the situation now as it stands.

People have been smoking since the dawn of time you know. It’s not just a moden day phenomenon.

Oh right so Neanderthal man went outside his cave at 11am for a cigarette break then did he?
God I need a smoke!!!!!





[edit on 13-11-2004 by The Teller]