If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm not arguing that all pubs should allow smoking. I'm just saying that there has to be room in the market for smoking and non-smoking pubs.
I just don't think that more legislation would be productive.
It's not nuclear science. It's very simple and not particularly expensive to install air circulation/extracting systems that will keep non-smoking areas smoke free.
Those who argue that any amount of smoke however small is bad and should not be allowed are advised never to set foot on a city or big town again in their lives- for the air would be rather more contaminated than in a properly ventilated area of a pub.
Al or Blagsta wish to address the BSE question?
And BSE? What?
its not even like a decent drug that has much recreational value, its just addictive and any pleasure gained is through the relief of the withdrawal symptoms.
Kid yourself all you want.
I like it.
Cars aren't useful to me. Ban them.
but cars despite all their bad points are a technology which has its benefits to society as a whole.... smoking itself has no benefit to society or individuals, at least people get stoned on weed or see things - those could be describedas pleasures, but smoking isnt
and your 'pleasure' is fine ie outside in public areas or in your house or at someones house who doesnt mind you smoking, but not at public and individuals enclosed areas etc as its directly related to thesolelibers point about businesses being able to discriminate, and the fact businesses have a responsiblity to society as a whole and not their own property
get me? - i not the most articulate person on here
To some extent I am playing devil's advocate.
But I have a serious point - its no one's business but mine whether I smoke and I won't be lectured at.
And I'll repeat what I wrote about pubs
"I'm not arguing that all pubs should allow smoking. I'm just saying that there has to be room in the market for smoking and non-smoking pubs."
Happy enough to lecture to others though?
The point about BSE was that by your argument the govt should not have banned BSE beef, it was peoples choice whether they ate it or not, do you agree with this?
I'll ignore this.
What a ridiculous parallel to draw.
You are the person that just made the far more absurd and completely flippant remark about cars.......
I think the car comparison is more valid. Some people think they'll live for ever if they ban smoking, then go and drive 5 minutes down the road to the shops in a petrol guzzling 4x4 SUV.
So do I. But at least Westlife don't have the potential to kill you and those around you (if we're being serious).
Yes maybe the beef was a bad example but consider that no-one used to think smoking was bad for you, surely by this logic as soon as it was found out it was dangerous it should have been banned, thus any ban now would just be catching up on a much delayed health and safety meaure on a faulty product?
I see the point with the cars, it is obviously a major worry, but clearly banning cars is inappropriate, I personally agree fully with a strict tax regime to cut down cost. i would also seek to use tax to limit 4*4s etc and I would permanently ban dangerous drivers but there you go.......
Making smoking illegal as some people demand is totally unacceptable IMO and I'd be tempted to take up the habit the minute it was criminalised out of fucking principle.
like when drinking was banned in america in the 20s, or when we criminalised people with heroin and cocaine addictions in the 60s
There is no actual reaon from a physical pleasure perspective to take up smoking, its about social factors, I think illegality would lessen these, don't you?
Actually, I read in the newspaper a little while ago that, net, smokers contribute far more to Government finances than they withdraw through healthcare. They pay about twice as much in tax as they take out in treatment.
Fact is, if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow the GOvernment would be arseholed. Truly and utterly.
I like what Arthur Smith (I think) said: you lose ten years of life, but it's the last ten years, which are spent dribbling anyway.
All this argument about "smoking drains the NHS" is utter bollocks- if it wasn't smoking, it'd be something else that caused cancer.
If people are daft enough to smoke then they should be allowed to. I'd say that about many drugs also, to a point.
Why don't we just ban everything because everything causes cancer or ill-health. Don't eat meat, don't eat eggs, don't drink the tap water, don't drive anywhere, don't walk anywhere (you might fall down a pot-hole). Follow that advice and you'll live forever! (or die of dehyrdation in three days, whichever comes first).
Don't be so silly, VAT revenue from fags makes a tiny portion of govt revenue, they would not be truly and utterly arseholed.....:rolleyes:
As for the second point, well.......
And yes, smoking related illnesses cause the NHS millions every year. It isn't just cancer, it is a major contributor to COPD, asthma, heart disease and many other diseases. People who have asthma and smoke need to use inhalers more than those who do not smoke - they get their inhalers at a subsidised cost on the NHS.
Then there are the people who smoke who attend smoking cessation clinics, obtain cut price nicotine replacement therapy, give up and keep on smoking.
Edit: I do realise I've simplified the cost to the NHS but I had to put it in laymans terms.
I dont think they should ban smoking, but I think it is different to a lot of drugs because it is smoked, therefore the fumes affect others around them adversely, and it should be limited and preferably not done in places where it is likely to affect others a lot. I dont care that it is bad for the health of the individual who smokes, as that is their choice, but the fact is, it harms the people around them and smokers shouldnt have the right to harm people like that.
Same with me. I don't care what people do to themselves (except my mum - I care that she smokes because I can see the detrimental effect it has on her health which is bad enough to begin with!). I care that what other people do to themselves makes my eyes stream. At work when a smoker approaches the reception desk I can instantly tell and it makes my throat seize up. Not nice.
So ban cars, BO and cheap aftershave then.