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 can't stand smokers ! :eek:
Don't be so moronic and answer the question.
I suppose that'll force clubs to bring in good air conditioning and ventilation which is only a good thing.
Probably not.......to my detriment.
I believe most things(including lea_uk
I believe there is some truth in a label that says "Smoking kills".It would be more truthful if the label added "in certain circumstances"
I THINK you mean "your" and not "ure" ? If so,there is an implied Muse=non-smoker and Seeker=smoker. Not necessarily so.
What is "safe" and what is not ? I`d say it depends on the circumstances.If you had a small glass of Cabernet Sauvignon every night,there is research to show it has health benefits.However if you necked two dozen bottles every night it may have an adverse effect on your health.
Legalland can be a very strange place.Black is white, and white is black.An imbalance between facts and opinions,and the opinions have the guns.
Maybe Legalland should carry a warning ?
But that's our job. We are there to remind people of the benefits of not smoking because the health of the population is our business. That said, I know what you mean about it being rammed down your throat a bit.
I see that we still haven't had anyone on here, who supports a ban, talking about the loss of tax revenue or how the Govt should make up the difference.
I'm sure that some people think that a drop in smoking will save the NHS money - because they won't have so many smoking related conditions to worry about.
Not quite true.
It will save money on smoking related conditions, that's something I would agree with. Sadly what is missed by many people - including the "powers that be" - is that these people will still get ill, will still die. They'll just get something else. problem is that the drop in smoking will reduce the tax income for the Govt. So they will have less money to spend, but will still have to face the cost of treating these people's various health needs. So what's the answer?
Anyone?
How about we reduce expenditure on crap like Iraq and wallpaper, private jets and ID cards?
I'm sure he works for a cigarette company, or repairs cig machines in pubs or something.
Who does the "we" refer to ?
Are you NOT selfish ? Who,exactly,do you do the things you do for ? If you think it is for others,what do YOU get out of it ? Is it pain and despair ?
How did you come to the conclusion that I "don`t give a fuck about anyone else" ?
Where does that surety about my contractual arrangements come from ?
The following is a public health warning (not legally binding
Drawing conclusions based on assumptions can lead to incorrect statements
**cheer**
Ben Bernanke (newly appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve) :
"But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."
Change the "U.S." to "U.K." and the "U.S. dollars" to "G.B.pounds" and you have AN answer.
and being a cynical fuck and not believing health warning by QUALIFIED professionals just to be 'alternative' or something may also lead to incorrect statements.
you are trying to unprove a proven point by mentioning 'technicalities' and having no evidence to back it up..
my evidence is that ppl that die from smoking related illnesses every day and a number of those are from passive smoking.
wheres ure evidence that says smoking isn't harmful? Using the alcohol example is completely different... (e.g. red wine can be/is healthy in moderation)...
No doubt you will have some example to come back to this with.. Maybe someone you know that smoked got hit by a car?... they didn't die from smoking, it MUST be safe!!!!!11
VERY emotional response. MORE assumptions and false statements. Which "proven point" are you alleging I am trying to unprove(is that possible,even if I had the time and inclination to do so ? :chin: ).
Could you give me the evidence that is proof that "passive smoking" is the cause of death ?
Harmless or not, tobacco is enjoyed - and legally so - by over a quarter of UK adults; I'm sure the majority would agree that all they want places where they can drink, smoke and socialise without feeling frowned-upon.
I still fail to understand why, if so many people want solely non-smoking venues, they're so afraid of the idea of allowing the "free market" to make this change itself?
You could listen to everything "qualified health professionals" say and still die tomorrow. I'm about to become a "qualified health professional" too.
So, how much violence is acceptable, in your opinion, to make people stop smoking?
I think any market needs decent government intervention in order to bring equality and efficiency...(There can be bad government intervention, yes).. so I wouldn't go with that arguement :P
If it was left to the free market, all that would happen would be non-smokers paying more at non-smoking venues, in turn leaving the majority of the population pretty pissed off! (Some would just put up with the smoke in order to get cheap prices, the smoking places would get both types of customer where as non smoking would just get one type).
No violence...
If people that are regulating smoking see someone smoking where they shouldnt, they should just take the cig or chuck them out if they don't listen..
No harm done... (except maybe a little benefit to the smoker being denied the cig!). Why can't they go smoke outside? If you're gonna do something that's anti-social (which i think smoking is amongst non-smokers) why do you have to do it in everyone elses face?
oh and maybe the response did seem a little pissed off, seeing as you question stupid things, you're like a child. WHY would passive smoking be any better than smoking (no filter, all the shit going into ure lungs), I can't even believe u are trying to argue this.. :no:
So if i want to open a pub and have smokers in it, that's fine?
You would employ no violence to stop me?
Nope, just some legislation.
If you wanta use things like roads and hospitals (granted you pay a very small share towards them) which have been made for you then you just have to accept some of the legislations i spose.
Well exactly! You [as a fanatical smoke-hater] wouldn't get the result you wanted.
Nope i wouldn't, along with the other majority of the population that don't smoke... thats how democracy works unfortunately, china is east
And if I ignored your "legislation" or made up some of my own that said I could?
How much violence would be acceptable to get me to comply?
I'll ask again -
So, how much violence is acceptable, in your opinion, to make people stop smoking?
The problem with violence is that people get hurt right?
Well.. how about this, as much violence as the amount of damage smokers do?
I take it the violence you're talking about would be the police sorting things out? There might be some idiots in the police but not all of them are gonna dive through the windows and start kicking heads in cos ppl are smoking.
If the smokers resisted (with violence) then they would be no better, so how could they justify the arguement? OK, from this you're gonna say, 'why should there be anyone to stop them smoking, when the landlord doesn't mind...' Maybe that's a fair point, but refer to my last post (gotta do what the people the majority voted in say) ... if they retalliate themselves with violence then they're just as bad as the ppl stopping them.
Well...duh!
So you'd light some sort of fire nearby and wait for them to stop? Sorry you lost me totally with this. What does it have to do with my question.
I'll have another go - what level of violence is personally acceptable to you to get people to stop smoking?
Ok. Let's have a look at this. Man in a costume comes up to you and says "you are smoking, stop now". You say "no thanks". He then wrestles you to the floor, kidnaps you and puts you into a cage.
Everyone is entitled to defend themselves against attack, surely to god?
And again, this has nothing to do with my point. Even if you don't resist, juat try and carry on with what you want to do, then you will be violently attacked. You will be violently attacked, resistance or not. A simple "no thanks" will see you threatened, manhandled, caged and degraded.
So, let's go back to that question again......
you ask how much violence.... you agreed that the bad thing about violence is ppl getting hurt... well, the amount of ppl getting hurt from the violence should be the same medical bill as the ones that smoking brings up.
Understand?
Smokers already pay more in than they take out of the NHS.
So, let me get this straight....you think that a person, in their own pub, surrounded by people who decided voluntarily to go there should be threatened, injured, caged and degraded in order to stop them smoking because they might give someone (who decided of their own free will to be in the same place) cancer at some future unspecified date and time?
I don't think they should be put in prison, I think they should be put outside the door so the room can smell nice again.
The people voluntarily going there (now the ban is being put in place) would not expect to see smokers, as it's not allowed... so them going there of their free will doesn't imply they knew ppl would be smoking.