England banning smoking in public places.

To UK members, presenter Roy Castle famously died of lung cancer after never smoking a cigarette in his life. He was better known for presenting childrens program Record Breakers on BBC1. Before he got into television he was a Jazz musician and played at pubs and clubs for years. It was said he contracted the disease from the second hand smoke he breathed whilst performing at these clubs. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he made an anti-smoking video for school children, which is where I remember him from.

Heres the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle

He established a Lung Cancer Foundation before his death in 1994.

I'm not denying that smoking is harmful to myself and to others around me, I am just saying that it should be the establishments OWNER who decides what can and cannot go on in his/her establishment. It's HIS/HERS, and should fall under private laws, where smoking IS legal.

To UK members, presenter Roy Castle famously died of lung cancer after never smoking a cigarette in his life. He was better known for presenting childrens program Record Breakers on BBC1. Before he got into television he was a Jazz musician and played at pubs and clubs for years. It was said he contracted the disease from the second hand smoke he breathed whilst performing at these clubs. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he made an anti-smoking video for school children, which is where I remember him from.

He established a Lung Cancer Foundation before his death in 1994.

I'm not denying that smoking is harmful to myself and to others around me, I am just saying that it should be the establishments OWNER who decides what can and cannot go on in his/her establishment. It's HIS/HERS, and should fall under private laws, where smoking IS legal.

dommeus

Government always decides what the public is allowed to do.  Gambling, underage drinking, drugs.....these are already not allowed in the OWNER'S establishment....why should smoking be any different?

To UK members, presenter Roy Castle famously died of lung cancer after never smoking a cigarette in his life. He was better known for presenting childrens program Record Breakers on BBC1. Before he got into television he was a Jazz musician and played at pubs and clubs for years. It was said he contracted the disease from the second hand smoke he breathed whilst performing at these clubs. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he made an anti-smoking video for school children, which is where I remember him from.

Heres the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle

He established a Lung Cancer Foundation before his death in 1994.

I'm not denying that smoking is harmful to myself and to others around me, I am just saying that it should be the establishments OWNER who decides what can and cannot go on in his/her establishment. It's HIS/HERS, and should fall under private laws, where smoking IS legal.

dommeus

OK here is a scenario :
I like listening to music all day long as loud as my stereo can play it.  Should I be allowed to do that in public?
ipolych

OK here is a scenario :
I like listening to music all day long as loud as my stereo can play it.  Should I be allowed to do that in public?
ipolych

You've got to think about the comfort and health of other people around you. So the answer is no.

[QUOTE="ipolych"]OK here is a scenario :
I like listening to music all day long as loud as my stereo can play it. Should I be allowed to do that in public?
LJS9502_basic

Good. Smoking is nasty. If you want to pollute your own body, fine, but it's no excuse to hurt others as well. I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but smoking is disgusting.stkr

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ipolych"]OK here is a scenario :
I like listening to music all day long as loud as my stereo can play it. Should I be allowed to do that in public?
ipolych

*sigh* I see the anti-smoking razzia's have taken over GS aswell...

Let's forget about the law, hmmkay? It's not relevant to this discussion I think. Let's look at a few other things instead:

-LJS_Basic posted in here that places that banned smoking had increased profit. This is bull. I don't even need to link it or whatever, it's simply bull. Why? Because if this were true, ALL establishments would instantly ban smoking. And they don't. So it's very obvious that while it may be true for some certain branches, overall this statement is flawed. Logic FTW.

-The 'I don't want to be around smokers coz it stinks and is bad for my health'. Well, *I* don't want to be next to cars on the road when I go to work on my bike. I don't have a car, I don't want one. But I still need to 'suffer' from all the filth those cars produce when they drive past me on the road, or when I'm walking around in the city.

-Smoking is bad for you and should be banned for it. Yeah, eating junkfood is bad for you too. So is alcohol. Let's ban EVERYTHING that is unhealthy!

-'Millions of ppl suffer from bad effects because of second-hand smoke! Look at the statistics!'. Cool, can you also show me the statistics of the ppl that get asthma and other stuff because of all the factories we build? And while you're at it, I also want the statistics for all cases of lung cancer caused by cars. See where I'm getting? Just because there are elements in a deceased's body that are in cigarettes doesn't mean that the elements found actually ARE there because of cigarettes.

Well I could sum up some other stuff if I would try, but I don't feel like it. Like Mr.Geezer said, we live in a capitalistic world. If you anti-smoking Gestapo REALLY want bars and restaurants that are smoke-free, start one yourself. Don't keep coming to smoking bars and restaurants only to whine about the smoking. Go to a non-smoking one. After all, like LJS said they make more profit, so there should be plenty around soon enough.

Oh btw... I do know smoking is bad for ppl, and also for ppl around them... but the crusade against smoking is out of proportions to say the least (at one time, smoking was suddenly prohibited in the cantina of one of my earlier jobs and we all had to go outside [yes I am a smoker :P]. Guess what... all the non smokers came with us...)

Oh btw 2: the industry developed machines that can clean the air of smoke for over 90% however for some odd reason this is not known to many ppl and ignored by the non smokers that do know it.

Laws are made for the good of the public......LJS9502_basic

-Smoking is bad for you and should be banned for it. Yeah, eating junkfood is bad for you too. So is alcohol. Let's ban EVERYTHING that is unhealthy!

Apenoot

I don't think were are campaigning against banning smoking outright, just in public areas - smoke in your house all you want, just not around other people. Eating is different because it doesn't effect third parties.

[QUOTE="Apenoot"]

-Smoking is bad for you and should be banned for it. Yeah, eating junkfood is bad for you too. So is alcohol. Let's ban EVERYTHING that is unhealthy!

Marx_Brother

I don't think were are campaigning against banning smoking outright, just in public areas - smoke in your house all you want, just not around other people. Eating is different because it doesn't effect third parties.

Exactly.  Smoking is banned, not because it is unhealthy for the person doing it, but the for the fact that it damages the health of all those around.  Eating crappy food only hurts yourself.

And as far as alcohol, while the consumption of alcohol is generally bad for one's health, there are laws against endangering the health of others while intoxicated.

[QUOTE="Marx_Brother"][QUOTE="Apenoot"]

-Smoking is bad for you and should be banned for it. Yeah, eating junkfood is bad for you too. So is alcohol. Let's ban EVERYTHING that is unhealthy!

sonicare

I don't think were are campaigning against banning smoking outright, just in public areas - smoke in your house all you want, just not around other people. Eating is different because it doesn't effect third parties.

Exactly.  Smoking is banned, not because it is unhealthy for the person doing it, but the for the fact that it damages the health of all those around.  Eating crappy food only hurts yourself.

And as far as alcohol, while the consumption of alcohol is generally bad for one's health, there are laws against endangering the health of others while intoxicated.

Bugger I already parried this argument aswell. I want cars banned, they are a luxery product aswell just like cigs and cause much more polution and environmental damage than smoking. They're also at least as bad for your health as cigarettes. Train, bus... all much cleaner and less health damaging than cars.

Also "I don't think were are campaigning against banning smoking outright" = truth, didn't word that carefully enough. My point still stands though.

[QUOTE="dommeus"]

To UK members, presenter Roy Castle famously died of lung cancer after never smoking a cigarette in his life. He was better known for presenting childrens program Record Breakers on BBC1. Before he got into television he was a Jazz musician and played at pubs and clubs for years. It was said he contracted the disease from the second hand smoke he breathed whilst performing at these clubs. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he made an anti-smoking video for school children, which is where I remember him from.

He established a Lung Cancer Foundation before his death in 1994.

I'm not denying that smoking is harmful to myself and to others around me, I am just saying that it should be the establishments OWNER who decides what can and cannot go on in his/her establishment. It's HIS/HERS, and should fall under private laws, where smoking IS legal.

LJS9502_basic

Government always decides what the public is allowed to do.  Gambling, underage drinking, drugs.....these are already not allowed in the OWNER'S establishment....why should smoking be any different?

You're twisting it a bit there. I didn't say people should break the law. I disagree with the law they've implemented. Underage drinking and drugs are illegal out and out, smoking isn't illegal.

*sigh* I see the anti-smoking razzia's have taken over GS aswell...

Let's forget about the law, hmmkay? It's not relevant to this discussion I think. Let's look at a few other things instead:

-LJS_Basic posted in here that places that banned smoking had increased profit. This is bull. I don't even need to link it or whatever, it's simply bull. Why? Because if this were true, ALL establishments would instantly ban smoking. And they don't. So it's very obvious that while it may be true for some certain branches, overall this statement is flawed. Logic FTW.

-The 'I don't want to be around smokers coz it stinks and is bad for my health'. Well, *I* don't want to be next to cars on the road when I go to work on my bike. I don't have a car, I don't want one. But I still need to 'suffer' from all the filth those cars produce when they drive past me on the road, or when I'm walking around in the city.

-Smoking is bad for you and should be banned for it. Yeah, eating junkfood is bad for you too. So is alcohol. Let's ban EVERYTHING that is unhealthy!

-'Millions of ppl suffer from bad effects because of second-hand smoke! Look at the statistics!'. Cool, can you also show me the statistics of the ppl that get asthma and other stuff because of all the factories we build? And while you're at it, I also want the statistics for all cases of lung cancer caused by cars. See where I'm getting? Just because there are elements in a deceased's body that are in cigarettes doesn't mean that the elements found actually ARE there because of cigarettes.

Well I could sum up some other stuff if I would try, but I don't feel like it. Like Mr.Geezer said, we live in a capitalistic world. If you anti-smoking Gestapo REALLY want bars and restaurants that are smoke-free, start one yourself. Don't keep coming to smoking bars and restaurants only to whine about the smoking. Go to a non-smoking one. After all, like LJS said they make more profit, so there should be plenty around soon enough.

Oh btw... I do know smoking is bad for ppl, and also for ppl around them... but the crusade against smoking is out of proportions to say the least (at one time, smoking was suddenly prohibited in the cantina of one of my earlier jobs and we all had to go outside [yes I am a smoker :P]. Guess what... all the non smokers came with us...)

Oh btw 2: the industry developed machines that can clean the air of smoke for over 90% however for some odd reason this is not known to many ppl and ignored by the non smokers that do know it.

Apenoot

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2002/smoke-free-restaurants.html

Good. They should take away smoking all together so more people don't get hooked. It serves no purpose in this world besides to make the big guys richerxwolfghost

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dommeus"]

To UK members, presenter Roy Castle famously died of lung cancer after never smoking a cigarette in his life. He was better known for presenting childrens program Record Breakers on BBC1. Before he got into television he was a Jazz musician and played at pubs and clubs for years. It was said he contracted the disease from the second hand smoke he breathed whilst performing at these clubs. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he made an anti-smoking video for school children, which is where I remember him from.

He established a Lung Cancer Foundation before his death in 1994.

I'm not denying that smoking is harmful to myself and to others around me, I am just saying that it should be the establishments OWNER who decides what can and cannot go on in his/her establishment. It's HIS/HERS, and should fall under private laws, where smoking IS legal.

dommeus

Government always decides what the public is allowed to do.  Gambling, underage drinking, drugs.....these are already not allowed in the OWNER'S establishment....why should smoking be any different?

You're twisting it a bit there. I didn't say people should break the law. I disagree with the law they've implemented. Underage drinking and drugs are illegal out and out, smoking isn't illegal.

I didn't twist anything....I pointed out that government already tells private business what is and isn't allowed on their property.  This is no different.

[QUOTE="dommeus"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dommeus"]

To UK members, presenter Roy Castle famously died of lung cancer after never smoking a cigarette in his life. He was better known for presenting childrens program Record Breakers on BBC1. Before he got into television he was a Jazz musician and played at pubs and clubs for years. It was said he contracted the disease from the second hand smoke he breathed whilst performing at these clubs. After he was diagnosed with cancer, he made an anti-smoking video for school children, which is where I remember him from.

He established a Lung Cancer Foundation before his death in 1994.

I'm not denying that smoking is harmful to myself and to others around me, I am just saying that it should be the establishments OWNER who decides what can and cannot go on in his/her establishment. It's HIS/HERS, and should fall under private laws, where smoking IS legal.

LJS9502_basic

Government always decides what the public is allowed to do.  Gambling, underage drinking, drugs.....these are already not allowed in the OWNER'S establishment....why should smoking be any different?

You're twisting it a bit there. I didn't say people should break the law. I disagree with the law they've implemented. Underage drinking and drugs are illegal out and out, smoking isn't illegal.

I didn't twist anything....I pointed out that government already tells private business what is and isn't allowed on their property.  This is no different.

Well in that case I believe the law being imposed in July 2007 is unfair!

[QUOTE="Apenoot"]...Very long rant...

LJS9502_basic

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2002/smoke-free-restaurants.html

I never doubted that what you said would be true, you are generally well informed. However it's most likely not the whole of the story. First of all: non-smokers might see the banning of smoking as a reason to suddenly go visit a restaurant while they wouldn't do so before coz of the smoking. The smokers however will still come. However, there was a citywide prohibition of smoking, so you can't compare the smoking to non-smoking restaurants.

Second: just restaurants. What about bars and clubs? And like I said before, if your point is the entire truth then why don't bars and restaurants ban smoking en-masse?

@ everyone: Don't get me wrong people I can understand it if ppl don't like me smoking under their noses, but it just happens too often that f.e while I'm waiting for a train the entire platform is abandoned except for one whiney fellow standing right under my nose complaining about the smoke. FFS go stand somewhere else.

I also like it how ppl try to counter individual parts of my rant before, and not the whole. Try that. Not possible (I think at least, but I dare y'all to try :wink: ).

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Apenoot"]...Very long rant...

Apenoot

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2002/smoke-free-restaurants.html

I never doubted that what you said would be true, you are generally well informed. However it's most likely not the whole of the story. First of all: non-smokers might see the banning of smoking as a reason to suddenly go visit a restaurant while they wouldn't do so before coz of the smoking. The smokers however will still come. However, there was a citywide prohibition of smoking, so you can't compare the smoking to non-smoking restaurants.

Second: just restaurants. What about bars and clubs? And like I said before, if your point is the entire truth then why don't bars and restaurants ban smoking en-masse?

@ everyone: Don't get me wrong people I can understand it if ppl don't like me smoking under their noses, but it just happens too often that f.e while I'm waiting for a train the entire platform is abandoned except for one whiney fellow standing right under my nose complaining about the smoke. FFS go stand somewhere else.

I also like it how ppl try to counter individual parts of my rant before, and not the whole. Try that. Not possible (I think at least, but I dare y'all to try :wink: ).

Restaurants and bars are included together.  They compare the business before and after the inactment of the law.

 

Restaurants and bars are included together.  They compare the business before and after the inactment of the law.

LJS9502_basic

They only talk about restaurants in this article. So either you've read some more on this or you are just guessing it includes bars aswell. Also, my other points still stand. Care to counter them? Discussion FTW! :D

  all of the crap from cars and factorys is full of harmfull chemicals. You breath in all sort of **** and you don't even know. There are harmful chemicals in foods, sources of hydration and medicines. Many medicines cause organ deteroration and failure. We're all lab rats. Everything you breath, eat and drink kills you.

  all of the crap from cars and factorys is full of harmfull chemicals. You breath in all sort of **** and you don't even know. There are harmful chemicals in foods, sources of hydration and medicines. Many medicines cause organ deteroration and failure. We're all lab rats. Everything you breath, eat and drink kills you. MagnumPI

Which is why those statistics on deseases and deaths caused by 'second-hand smoke' are BS. I second ya

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] 

Restaurants and bars are included together.  They compare the business before and after the inactment of the law.

Apenoot

They only talk about restaurants in this article. So either you've read some more on this or you are just guessing it includes bars aswell. Also, my other points still stand. Care to counter them? Discussion FTW! :D

Other points?  As I stated bars are included. Cars are necessary.  Second hand smoke is harmful.

*sigh* I see the anti-smoking razzia's have taken over GS aswell...

Let's forget about the law, hmmkay? It's not relevant to this discussion I think. Let's look at a few other things instead:

-LJS_Basic posted in here that places that banned smoking had increased profit. This is bull. I don't even need to link it or whatever, it's simply bull. Why? Because if this were true, ALL establishments would instantly ban smoking. And they don't. So it's very obvious that while it may be true for some certain branches, overall this statement is flawed. Logic FTW.

-The 'I don't want to be around smokers coz it stinks and is bad for my health'. Well, *I* don't want to be next to cars on the road when I go to work on my bike. I don't have a car, I don't want one. But I still need to 'suffer' from all the filth those cars produce when they drive past me on the road, or when I'm walking around in the city.

-Smoking is bad for you and should be banned for it. Yeah, eating junkfood is bad for you too. So is alcohol. Let's ban EVERYTHING that is unhealthy!

-'Millions of ppl suffer from bad effects because of second-hand smoke! Look at the statistics!'. Cool, can you also show me the statistics of the ppl that get asthma and other stuff because of all the factories we build? And while you're at it, I also want the statistics for all cases of lung cancer caused by cars. See where I'm getting? Just because there are elements in a deceased's body that are in cigarettes doesn't mean that the elements found actually ARE there because of cigarettes.

Well I could sum up some other stuff if I would try, but I don't feel like it. Like Mr.Geezer said, we live in a capitalistic world. If you anti-smoking Gestapo REALLY want bars and restaurants that are smoke-free, start one yourself. Don't keep coming to smoking bars and restaurants only to whine about the smoking. Go to a non-smoking one. After all, like LJS said they make more profit, so there should be plenty around soon enough.

Oh btw... I do know smoking is bad for ppl, and also for ppl around them... but the crusade against smoking is out of proportions to say the least (at one time, smoking was suddenly prohibited in the cantina of one of my earlier jobs and we all had to go outside [yes I am a smoker :P]. Guess what... all the non smokers came with us...)

Oh btw 2: the industry developed machines that can clean the air of smoke for over 90% however for some odd reason this is not known to many ppl and ignored by the non smokers that do know it.

Apenoot

Other points?  As I stated bars are included.LJS9502_basic

Read the article again man, it says "The researchers found that total restaurant sales continued to climb in all four cities". It doesn't mention bars ANYWHERE. And I studied journalism so don't tell me how they 'do' statistics. If it doesn't explicitly say 'bars are included' in an article, it means that bars are NOT included. Don't understand why you keep saying it does.

My other points? For example: why don't restaurants ban smoking en-masse now that this revelation where made? And also...

The rest of my looooong rant including the air ventilation system with over 90% filtering capability, the comparison with cars and factory junk that are undoubtedly in my lungs aswell etc. etc.

My point is: demonizing smokers is going a bit too far atm.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Other points?  As I stated bars are included.Apenoot

Read the article again man, it says "The researchers found that total restaurant sales continued to climb in all four cities". It doesn't mention bars ANYWHERE. And I studied journalism so don't tell me how they 'do' statistics. If it doesn't explicitly say 'bars are included' in an article, it means that bars are NOT included. Don't understand why you keep saying it does.

My other points? For example: why don't restaurants ban smoking en-masse now that this revelation where made? And also...

The rest of my looooong rant including the air ventilation system with over 90% filtering capability, the comparison with cars and factory junk that are undoubtedly in my lungs aswell etc. etc.

My point is: demonizing smokers is going a bit too far atm.

Yes...but bar business has increased as well.  As I said a large segment of the population doesn't frequent bars due to the smoking atmosphere.  Common sense and research do back up that banning smoking increases consumers. I've read the reports.....don't want to search.

Restaurants didn't ban smoking en masse prior because there was no study informing them they wouldn't lose money.  Plus, they did not really care.

Cars and factories are necessary.  The government has cracked down on emissions from both.  Your point is moot.

No one cares if someone chooses to smoke......as long as they don't force non smokers to inhale their cigarette's etc.

Good. Smoking is nasty. If you want to pollute your own body, fine, but it's no excuse to hurt others as well. I know a lot of people don't agree with me, but smoking is disgusting.stkr

To your first point: I don't know of any statistics or otherwise on this, it would most likely differ with each establishment. Second: Cars and cigarettes are very different. Without cars and other forms of transportation, society and economy would collapse. However polluting these vehicles may be, they are still necessary to civilised nations. On the other hand, cigarettes are merely a form of recreation. Wouldn't you prefer smoking to be banned than cars to be banned? Third: I see your point here, as long as a smoker is causing no harm to others then smoking need not be banned. Fourth:Connected to the cars point. Unfortunately, factories are necessary. Or at least more necessary than cigarettes. But the effects of factories aren't as physically noticeable (unless you live in a very industrial city). People can see cigarette smoke, they can smell it and notice they are inhaling it. It is not just the health risk of smoke which non-smokers dislike, but the fact that it is generally unpleasant and cigarettes recreational. Nothing is gained from the existence of cigarettes, whilst factories generate power which is required for most nations.Salvy41

First point: well see my other posts :)

Second point: public transportation could be used as a cleaner alternative to cars. Cars are a luxery product (like cigs) and as much as you might think you 'can't go without them', this is not true. I don't have a car and I can get everywhere I like. I'm not really against cars, btw, I use it as an example and to show how double arguing about smoking is.

Fourth point: that's because you're used to it. The air is cleaner where I live now, but when I visit friends back at where I came from, it stinks. For an hour or two. After that, you're used to it. Also this point was mainly made to show that statistics about 'hazzards of second-hand smoke' are shady, to say the least

If I could stop smoking just like that... I'd do it. The idea of one poster to stop selling cigs to ppl born after a certain date is good. However, millions of ppl smoke, and if it were easy to stop, they'd do it. Don't listen to ppl saying 'I stopped easily, don't understand why smokers are complaining about it'... ignore this person. For some it's easy, but for most, quitting is freaking hard and I know all about it :(

[QUOTE="Salvy41"]To your first point: I don't know of any statistics or otherwise on this, it would most likely differ with each establishment. Second: Cars and cigarettes are very different. Without cars and other forms of transportation, society and economy would collapse. However polluting these vehicles may be, they are still necessary to civilised nations. On the other hand, cigarettes are merely a form of recreation. Wouldn't you prefer smoking to be banned than cars to be banned? Third: I see your point here, as long as a smoker is causing no harm to others then smoking need not be banned. Fourth:Connected to the cars point. Unfortunately, factories are necessary. Or at least more necessary than cigarettes. But the effects of factories aren't as physically noticeable (unless you live in a very industrial city). People can see cigarette smoke, they can smell it and notice they are inhaling it. It is not just the health risk of smoke which non-smokers dislike, but the fact that it is generally unpleasant and cigarettes recreational. Nothing is gained from the existence of cigarettes, whilst factories generate power which is required for most nations.Apenoot

First point: well see my other posts :)

Second point: public transportation could be used as a cleaner alternative to cars. Cars are a luxery product (like cigs) and as much as you might think you 'can't go without them', this is not true. I don't have a car and I can get everywhere I like. I'm not really against cars, btw, I use it as an example and to show how double arguing about smoking is.

Fourth point: that's because you're used to it. The air is cleaner where I live now, but when I visit friends back at where I came from, it stinks. For an hour or two. After that, you're used to it. Also this point was mainly made to show that statistics about 'hazzards of second-hand smoke' are shady, to say the least

If I could stop smoking just like that... I'd do it. The idea of one poster to stop selling cigs to ppl born after a certain date is good. However, millions of ppl smoke, and if it were easy to stop, they'd do it. Don't listen to ppl saying 'I stopped easily, don't understand why smokers are complaining about it'... ignore this person. For some it's easy, but for most, quitting is freaking hard and I know all about it :(

Yes...but bar business has increased as well.  As I said a large segment of the population doesn't frequent bars due to the smoking atmosphere.  Common sense and research do back up that banning smoking increases consumers. I've read the reports.....don't want to search.

Restaurants didn't ban smoking en masse prior because there was no study informing them they wouldn't lose money.  Plus, they did not really care.

Cars and factories are necessary.  The government has cracked down on emissions from both.  Your point is moot.

No one cares if someone chooses to smoke......as long as they don't force non smokers to inhale their cigarette's etc.

LJS9502_basic

Your common sense tells you ppl that don't like smoking often don't go to bars and restaurants, which is not true. I don't know a single soul who reasons like this, though maybe there's a difference in attitude between our countries regarding this (but I doubt it). Restaurants also still don't ban smoking here en masse because they don't WANT TO. Apparantly those waiters and cooks all LOVE the smell of tobacco. Or, there might be another reason why they don't.

Cars are not necessary, public transport is cleaner. I can get everywhere on foot, on my bike, or by using the train. Factories ARE needed BUT! as I stated in another post, my point here was to show that statistics concerning damage caused by second hand smoke are shady. Any number of factors could cause the damage (like the aforementioned factories etc)

"No one cares if someone chooses to smoke......as long as they don't force non smokers to inhale their cigarette's etc."

THE whole point of all the smokers hating. People hate it, so they will come up with all kind of bogus to 'prove how they are negatively affected by it'. At least with all the taxes, the 'I don't want to pay for a smokers lung cancer' bs is over, guess shady stats about second hand smoking is the next hot item. Smoking is not good for anyone, but non-smokers are starting to act more and more like the gestapo nowadays.

Let me smoke my ciggie in peace 8)

EDIT: @ Salvy41: Again, my point is not to ban cars... :wink: But it's reasoning along the same line as trying to ban cigs (also I was only talking about cars for private use, sorry if I didnt make that clear enough). I think 30% of the population wouldn't agree with you if you said that banning smoking is nowhere near as dramatic as banning cars :D:D Don't touch our ciggies! :lol: (my parents used to be fairly poor when I was a baby and they'd cut down on their own food to be able to afford my food and... cigs... kinda sad when ya think about it... :P )

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes...but bar business has increased as well. As I said a large segment of the population doesn't frequent bars due to the smoking atmosphere. Common sense and research do back up that banning smoking increases consumers. I've read the reports.....don't want to search.

Restaurants didn't ban smoking en masse prior because there was no study informing them they wouldn't lose money. Plus, they did not really care.

Cars and factories are necessary. The government has cracked down on emissions from both. Your point is moot.

No one cares if someone chooses to smoke......as long as they don't force non smokers to inhale their cigarette's etc.

Apenoot

Your common sense tells you ppl that don't like smoking often don't go to bars and restaurants, which is not true. I don't know a single soul who reasons like this, though maybe there's a difference in attitude between our countries regarding this (but I doubt it). Restaurants also still don't ban smoking here en masse because they don't WANT TO. Apparantly those waiters and cooks all LOVE the smell of tobacco. Or, there might be another reason why they don't.

Cars are not necessary, public transport is cleaner. I can get everywhere on foot, on my bike, or by using the train. Factories ARE needed BUT! as I stated in another post, my point here was to show that statistics concerning damage caused by second hand smoke are shady. Any number of factors could cause the damage (like the aforementioned factories etc)

"No one cares if someone chooses to smoke......as long as they don't force non smokers to inhale their cigarette's etc."

THE whole point of all the smokers hating. People hate it, so they will come up with all kind of bogus to 'prove how they are negatively affected by it'. At least with all the taxes, the 'I don't want to pay for a smokers lung cancer' bs is over, guess shady stats about second hand smoking is the next hot item. Smoking is not good for anyone, but non-smokers are starting to act more and more like the gestapo nowadays.

Let me smoke my ciggie in peace 8)

What kind of loser smokes anyway? o_OtooELEET

*raises hand* :D:D 

 Yay communism.. I guess. I mean cause who cares which rights they abuse or exploit because they would never take advantage of abuse any of your rights.:roll: Cuz you teh koolest. Only the unhip get the razz.

  If my business is built on my privately owned not government owned property doesn't restrict smoking I don't understand why the government can tell me which legalized substances can be used on my property. None other than an illegitimate law that exists merely to have another excuse to get money from people.

[QUOTE="tooELEET"]What kind of loser smokes anyway? o_OApenoot

*raises hand* :D:D

Salvy, my respons to you was edited in on my previous post... I'll copy paste it here...

EDIT: @ Salvy41: Again, my point is not to ban cars... But it's reasoning along the same line as trying to ban cigs (also I was only talking about cars for private use, sorry if I didnt make that clear enough). I think 30% of the population wouldn't agree with you if you said that banning smoking is nowhere near as dramatic as banning cars Don't touch our ciggies! (my parents used to be fairly poor when I was a baby and they'd cut down on their own food to be able to afford my food and... cigs... kinda sad when ya think about it...  )

Your common sense tells you ppl that don't like smoking often don't go to bars and restaurants, which is not true. I don't know a single soul who reasons like this, though maybe there's a difference in attitude between our countries regarding this (but I doubt it). Restaurants also still don't ban smoking here en masse because they don't WANT TO. Apparantly those waiters and cooks all LOVE the smell of tobacco. Or, there might be another reason why they don't.

Cars are not necessary, public transport is cleaner. I can get everywhere on foot, on my bike, or by using the train. Factories ARE needed BUT! as I stated in another post, my point here was to show that statistics concerning damage caused by second hand smoke are shady. Any number of factors could cause the damage (like the aforementioned factories etc)

"No one cares if someone chooses to smoke......as long as they don't force non smokers to inhale their cigarette's etc."

THE whole point of all the smokers hating. People hate it, so they will come up with all kind of bogus to 'prove how they are negatively affected by it'. At least with all the taxes, the 'I don't want to pay for a smokers lung cancer' bs is over, guess shady stats about second hand smoking is the next hot item. Smoking is not good for anyone, but non-smokers are starting to act more and more like the gestapo nowadays.

Let me smoke my ciggie in peace 8)

Apenoot

One.....it's not common sense I rely on...I know plenty of people that refuse to go to bars due to the smoke.  Research as it were.  And after an initial adjustment the smokers would be there just as always.  They won't stop drinking just because they have to go outside for a quick smoke.

As I stated before....without empirical evidence to the contrary restaurants would be afraid of losing business.  Now that laws are in effect and study show otherwise....they don't care.  They do the token complaint so that smokers feel they are on their side...but profit is what runs the business.

Cars are necessary.  Let me see you get your pregnant wife to the hospital at 3 Am relying on public transportation.  Couple that with the fact that some cities have a terrible system for public transportation.  I can assure where I live it's the worst.

Again I did state the government has cracked down on both automakers and factories to burn less hazardous materials.  So that argument is frivolous....

The medical field discovered the hazards of smoke.  Period.  Now I want you to tell me why your habit should infringe on someone elses right to breathe clean air.

Salvy, my respons to you was edited in on my previous post... I'll copy paste it here...

EDIT: @ Salvy41: Again, my point is not to ban cars... But it's reasoning along the same line as trying to ban cigs (also I was only talking about cars for private use, sorry if I didnt make that clear enough). I think 30% of the population wouldn't agree with you if you said that banning smoking is nowhere near as dramatic as banning cars Don't touch our ciggies! (my parents used to be fairly poor when I was a baby and they'd cut down on their own food to be able to afford my food and... cigs... kinda sad when ya think about it... )

Apenoot

One.....it's not common sense I rely on...I know plenty of people that refuse to go to bars due to the smoke.  Research as it were.  And after an initial adjustment the smokers would be there just as always.  They won't stop drinking just because they have to go outside for a quick smoke.

As I stated before....without empirical evidence to the contrary restaurants would be afraid of losing business.  Now that laws are in effect and study show otherwise....they don't care.  They do the token complaint so that smokers feel they are on their side...but profit is what runs the business.

Cars are necessary.  Let me see you get your pregnant wife to the hospital at 3 Am relying on public transportation.  Couple that with the fact that some cities have a terrible system for public transportation.  I can assure where I live it's the worst.

Again I did state the government has cracked down on both automakers and factories to burn less hazardous materials.  So that argument is frivolous....

The medical field discovered the hazards of smoke.  Period.  Now I want you to tell me why your habit should infringe on someone elses right to breathe clean air.LJS9502_basic

Paragraph 1: I'd go to a bar if I weren't allowed to smoke inside, but what you get then is whole crowds of ppl going outside at night and some being drunk. You're not even allowed to be drunk on the street. Stuff will be vandalized. And a lot of non-smokers would come with the smokers. Happens at parties at non-smoking friends' houses I go to all the time. And there's also the point of the air ventilation system that's still standing. But like every other non-smoker that point is ignored. Unfortunatly I can only give Dutch links since I don't know how such a thing would be called in English. But google it... I'm sure you could find it.

Paragraph 2: You assume those restaurants complain to get smokers on their side, but with smoking being forbidden by law in such establishments there would be no sense for them to do so. You're just assuming they would.

Paragraph 3: Cars are NOT necessary. Public transportation would have to be re-arranged and if your wife is pregnant you'd have to take it into account, but it's perfectly doable. If you could make a choice between a world with no cars or one with no cigs... I'd pick the no car world. Better for the environment, better for everyones' health... But I guess since most ppl (even smokers) drive cars, they wouldn't want this. After all, it's inconvenient for them in which case any argument concerning the matter is moot to them.

Paragraph 4: For the last and final time: this point was made by me to show that 'evidence of second hand smoking damage' is bull. There is no way to distinquish damage done by factory polution from damage done by second hand smoking. Unless you show me statistics with seperate tables for different kinds of lung damage my point stands.

Paragraph 5: I KNOW smoking is bad for my health. I don't contest that. I know ppl who don't smoke think it's groce. So the solution is: don't hang around near smokers. Find a non-smoking bar/restaurant, don't follow them outside when smokers go there for a cig (many ppl really do this). I'm not infringing my bad habit onto anyone (and yes I'm one of those guys who will put out his cig if ppl are bothered by it)