Forum Moderators: open
Or are they both the same.
No answer is really required. I guess I was just noticing a little irony. :)
I have never seen smokers claim a right to smoke nearly as aggressively as passionate non-smokers demand that all smokers stop smoking.
Amen... :)
I have never seen smokers claim a right to smoke nearly as aggressively as passionate non-smokers demand that all smokers stop smoking.
Why not allow pubs choose to be licenced public smoking areas (or not) and let the market decide? That way non-smokers can go to the non-smoking pubs and smokers can go to the smoking pubs. Everyone is happy, right?
Actually, as I said in my earlier post, since the ban was imposed in Scotland back in March overall there has been no negative effect on the pubs. Most pubs and clubs have saw no difference or an increase in takings. The only problem is the clouds of smoke in the street outside when you are passing a bar ;)
Because of our unpredictable weather a motley collection of "beer gardens", gazebos, canopies and other shelters have sprung up outside the pubs. A whole new smoking, coughing, shivering society has been born!
BUT as a recent NON-SMOKER (18 days now!) I do have to respond to the non-smoking comments in this thread.
I agree, you should have your right to breathe clean air. Smokers basically have no valid argument against the dangers of smoking, of second hand smoke, that it's a disgusting dirty habit. The only argument a smoker has is that it is my right to choose. It's a lose-lose on both sides of the fence - in response to this smug holier than thou attitude, many smokers intentionally violate peoples' air space. "You can't tell ME what to do!"
It's not the smoking non-smokers are so peeved about. It's the total lack of consideration by smokers. When I smoked, I did so outside, even in a bar where I was allowed to smoke. I carried a pocket ashtray and did not litter. When crowded into close social quarters, I refrained or moved away.
If half the smokers carried a conscientious attitude about their habit, we wouldn't be passing more stupid legislation to force people to do what they should do out of common courtesy.
I am happy to say that even as a non-smoker, I support peoples' right to kill themselves in any way they see fit, quickly or slowly, and vow (to myself) to never assume this pious attitude, it's more unattractive than smoking itself. More, I say, because having this attitude against smoking is sure to carry many more self-righteous positions with it.
It's all about personal power and control. You cannot control people, all you can control is how you react to them.
canopies and other shelters have sprung up outside the pubs.
This will change too. We have an outdoor concert arena here, no smoking on the entire grounds, even though it's outside.
In the UK, the NHS's (National health Service) colloquial term for a young male motorcyclist is "organ donor".
LOL. That quip made my night. Thanks
Adam, what are we going to do? ;)
No Helmet = Instant death (in most instances).
Smoking = Slow death (in most instances).
Either way, many of us are too stubborn to realize that both are invitations for disaster.
I have never seen smokers claim a right to smoke nearly as aggressively as passionate non-smokers demand that all smokers stop smoking.
Non-smokers don't have a problem with smokers, they have a problem with air pollution.
Eldery man seriously injured in house explosion:
Homeowner: I woke up, lit a cigarette and the entire house blew up
It's dangerous to smoke!
Non-smokers don't have a problem with smokers, they have a problem with air pollution.
That fails to explain the rampant and widespread enthusiasm for the eradication of designated smoking zones.
I may have quit myself but I don't begrudge smokers the option to go to a pub where they can enjoy a cigarette with their pint along with friends who enjoy the same, served by bar staff who also smoke.
If I prefer to go to a non-smoking bar, that's up to me. Why should I then demand that smoking must be banned from the other place as well?
Well, Ronin, you exhibit that well-reasoned logic that is exempt from most thought. Damn you, say the advocacy groups...
If I guess correctly, Lawman is looking for the irony that is exhibited by people like me, that, remark about how dangerous it is to ride a bike without a helmet, while I blow smoke around the cigarette in my mouth...
And to that say, yep, you're right. My hypocrisy knows no bounds. But I'll continue to takes risks, like riding bulls and jumping out of planes. After all, I've beat cancer once... ; )
I may have quit myself but I don't begrudge smokers the option to go to a pub where they can enjoy a cigarette with their pint along with friends who enjoy the same, served by bar staff who also smoke.
Well, Ronin, you exhibit that well-reasoned logic that is exempt from most thought.
Not.
This overlooks the rather crucial point that even among bar staff who smoke, few would choose to smoke continuously for eight hours in a row...
There are two groups these non-smoking regulations are intended to protect in the case of pubs and restaurants: non-smoking patrons and wait staff. The first group can be protected short of a full ban, but it's very difficult to protect wait staff from the effects of continuous exposure to secondhand smoke. To do so would require the owners of restaurants and pubs to install relatively powerful air handling equipment.
On the other hand, it might not be an entirely bad idea to allow establishments the option of allowing smoking if they were willing to maintain acceptable air quality for both their own staff members and non-smoking patrons.
One of the things that usually goes unnoticed in these discussions is that in the case of employees, the smoking bans provide a practical, if not always popular, way of enforcing the protections that workers are already entitled to in most jurisdictions under the umbrella of the local workers' health/safety/compensation boards.
-b
don't worry P1 you know I'll have an alternate plan ;)
One of the things that usually goes unnoticed in these discussions is that in the case of employees, the smoking bans provide a practical, if not always popular, way of enforcing the protections that workers are already entitled to in most jurisdictions under the umbrella of the local workers' health/safety/compensation boards.
Here in Scotland smoking has been banned from all public buildings and workplaces. This is observed the extent that if a workman enters your house and you have been smoking he is entitled to leave.
Actually I smoked for about thirty years. I tried many times to give up but the hardest part was always when I went to a bar or restaurant. This was almost always the time that I weakened because I saw other enjoying a smoke. The new legislation should make it much easier for people to stop since they will not be affected by the sites and smells that help trigger the craving.
You are right DG. I noticed that a member who was very opinionated on the dangers of riding without a helmet just happens to smoke. Seemed kinda funny and I started this thread. Had no idea anyone was actually interested. :)
Great, we've all been trolled by a moderator. lol . . .
Which of course leads to the question...
Which is worse, being trolled by a moderator or being moderated by a troll?
