Home Politics & Debate
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

Smoke Free by 2007 July

1246716

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LacyMay wrote:
    I don't see why you all just don't start smoking. It's a proven fact that non smokers whinge more and have less friends :p
    Thats because if smokers are so laid back about killing themselves, what the fuck else is there to worry about? lol

    Its also a proven fact that smokers have more change in there pocket. ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Not too sure I really want to waste my money on slowly killing myself, thanks. And I've seen what it can do to people.

    Oh is that what i'm doing? Damn i was just doing it to look cool!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    LacyMay wrote:
    Oh is that what i'm doing? Damn i was just doing it to look cool!
    You can always invest in a pair of sun glasses to look cool like these. :cool:

    :cool:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    You can always invest in a pair of sun glasses to look cool like these. :cool:

    :cool:

    In the middle of winter? That is so uncool.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    I couldn't give a rats arse weather there is a smoking ban or not.

    At the end of the day your killing yourself and the govermant think they are doing you a favour by placing bans in an attempt for you to think more about giving up. Period

    From the view of a non smoker (even though not necessarily my view), why should a non smoker have to sit in a smoked filled room and breath the smoke in? You [as a smoker] wouldn't understand though.

    I didn't know you felt so passionate about smoking anyway.

    You clearly could give a rat's ass or you wouldn't be discussing it; or maybe you are just exercising your flair for the dramatic arts with your wailing about smokers killing themselves? I wonder.

    The government do not think they are doing smokers a favour... they are exerting further power over what was once our freedom to employ common sense and personal choice in our choices and behaviour in public and in private settings. Period.

    I am less passionate about smoking than I am about my freedom to do it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    By banning smoking in pubs there somewhat trying to help people give up. As they cant just stop selling cigarettes like that, in a way there doing smokers a favour.

    That does really smack of ignorance.

    But as far as the Gov't are concerned, they don't want to do smokers that much of a favour. God knows, they make enough money out of us and if we all stopped, there'd be a £10bn hole in the budget which would have to be filled somehow.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    You clearly could give a rat's ass or you wouldn't be discussing it; or maybe you are just exercising your flair for the dramatic arts with your wailing about smokers killing themselves? I wonder.

    The government do not think they are doing smokers a favour... they are exerting further power over what was once our freedom to employ common sense and personal choice in our choices and behaviour in public and in private settings. Period.

    I am less passionate about smoking than I am about my freedom to do it.
    Why should a non smoker have to breath in smoke? What about a non smokers "freedom"?

    You only have to walk over to the door, it might improve your cardiovascular system in the mean time.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That does really smack of ignorance.

    But as far as the Gov't are concerned, they don't want to do smokers that much of a favour. God knows, they make enough money out of us and if we all stopped, there'd be a £10bn hole in the budget which would have to be filled somehow.
    Really what have the govermant got to gain by making pubs non smoking? Again they are not banning smoking altogether, just banning it in places like pubs where other people (non smokers) have to breath in. Your still allowed to smoke outside. In the mean time they are hoping people like you give up. I have already seen a post in this thread where someone said this ban will help them give up.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote:
    I'm sure someone's said it before but if the government really wanted to give people an incentive to give up smoking they'd ban it completely, but they won't because they're too busy reaping the benefits of the extortionate amount of tax they place on cigarettes.
    You couldn't possibly ban smoking altogether just like that. Smoking is an addiction, I cant begin to imagine the carnage it would cause where people want a fix.

    Who knows, in about 20 years down the line they may ban smoking altogether. But in the mean time it seems they are taking steps to get people to cut down so to speak. Give it a few years and they probably will ban smoking in the street, or something like that more drastic.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote:
    And people who complain about smoking in the street need to take a long hard look at whether one poxy cigarette is going to cause them that much damage when there are cars going past you emitting far more of those dangerous fumes than that said one cigarette is doing.

    I take it you've had someone blow smoke in your face then? Or had someone walk past you who has just had a cigarette?:yuck:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    Why should a non smoker have to breath in smoke? What about a non smokers "freedom"?

    Why should people who don't drive cars have to breathe exhaust fumes? It is just as dangerous, and certainly more damaging to the environment.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should people who don't drive cars have to breathe exhaust fumes? It is just as dangerous, and certainly more damaging to the environment.
    But were on the topic of smoking, so not talking about cars.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    But were on the topic of smoking, so not talking about cars.

    The base issue of inhaling toxic fumes is the same, so surely it is within the confines of reasonable debate to mention it. Though obviously you'd disagree as it makes you look like a hypocrite ;)

    Oh, and just as a little aside, you can fuck away off with your flippant comment about my cardivascular system. That is going off topic, and to be honest you have no clue about how healthy my CV system is or is not. If you would like to PM me to compare BP scores I will be happy to tear you a new arsehole :angel:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    The base issue of inhaling toxic fumes is the same, so surely it is within the confines of reasonable debate to mention it. Though obviously you'd disagree as it makes you look like a hypocrite ;)

    Oh, and just as a little aside, you can fuck away off with your flippant comment about my cardivascular system. That is going off topic, and to be honest you have no clue about how healthy my CV system is or is not. If you would like to PM me to compare BP scores I will be happy to tear you a new arsehole :angel:
    Oh right lol.

    Perhaps that was another govermant plan, walking to the entrance to improve your health slightly. ;)

    But were talking about smoking not blood pressure, cholesterol etc. And I am more in favour of the ban because hopefully it will a)give smokers another reason to give up and b)prevent non smokers breathing in the smoke.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    On the banning cars vs banning smoking thing, I'd say that banning vehicles would be a massive step that couldn't be done huge changes to pretty much everything, whereas banning smoking in indoor public places is completely achievable.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well they are taking steps with cars such as congestion charge in an attempt to get people to think about London transport (which that needs to improve vastly first).

    But there not banning smoking completely though, just indoor public places. You can still go outside if you want, but this is an inconvenience to some so some may think about giving up.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does anyone know what the government's official line is for bringing in the smoking ban?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Not too sure I really want to waste my money on slowly killing myself

    Not when you can die for free anyway.

    Hate to point this out, but it's a fact often overlooked...

    More non-smokers, than smokers, die everyday.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The smell of smoke is foul, and the effects of smoke are foul.

    Being honest, I think this smoking ban is OTT, and that's wrong. I don't care if people smoke so long as I am not forced to have to smell it and breathe it in. I have no objection to smoking rooms so long as I don't have to go through a smoking area to go to the bogs or the bar, and the non-smoking area is completely segregated. I don't even care if people smoke whilst eating so long as I am sat in a different room to them and don't have to smell and taste Marlboro instead of steak.

    If a pub can't provide a fully segregated smoking room then it should have to be non-smoking, but if it can then it should be allowed to. Concert venues should be non-smoking, though, simply because its impossible to provide fully segregated smoking and non-smoking areas whilst watching the same band.

    The snitch-line is fine, though, and if a pub refuses to police the smoking ban I'd report them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should people who don't drive cars have to breathe exhaust fumes? It is just as dangerous, and certainly more damaging to the environment.

    But some people need cars or some other form of piblic transport to travel to & from places.
    Concert venues should be non-smoking, though, simply because its impossible to provide fully segregated smoking and non-smoking areas whilst watching the same band.

    There is a band who, when playing at a venue do ask (beforehand obviously) that people don't smoke as apparantely it makes sining difficult or something. (will look up the actual reason later)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not when you can die for free anyway.

    Hate to point this out, but it's a fact often overlooked...

    More non-smokers, than smokers, die everyday.
    And how do you work that out?
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    HIT wrote:
    And how do you work that out?
    Simple. There are (hopefully) more non-smokers than smokers, and a percentage of people die every day. Since these deaths are not related to smoking, the percentage should be about the same in both groups.

    Since I replied, here's what I think: Smoking should be completely banned in any public and enclosed space that doesn't have a clearly, and air-tightly separated room for smokers, the only "holes" from which that remain open lead outside, and not in the non-smoking (shall I say "normal people's"?) room.
    Outside thought, like in the street, I don't give a shit if people smoke.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Simple. There are (hopefully) more non-smokers than smokers, and a percentage of people die every day. Since these deaths are not related to smoking, the percentage should be about the same in both groups.
    I was thinking that first, I just thought there was more to it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    And how do you work that out?

    18% of the population smoke.

    100% of the population die.

    It's not rocket science.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HIT wrote:
    I was thinking that first, I just thought there was more to it.

    I find tramping over peoples' freedom far worse, by a great marginal, than the health effects of smoking. I believe in a freedom of choice which in turn creates every individual in our society and is and we have a rudimentary right of choosing for ourselves. Trying to regulate freedom is not the way to go. Prohibiting smoking is therefore wrong IMO and it should be a choice made by the individual in question. When it comes to restaurants, yes, there should be a seperation of smoking and non-smoking rooms and people who don't want to inhale the 'killing' smoke well they should, as they have a freedom of choice as well, have the possibility of not being present in smoky confined spaces.

    It's wrong and ludicrous to ban it completely. They might as well take away our freedom while they're at it. Public places esp.

    And no, I don't smoke.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find tramping over peoples' freedom far worse, by a great marginal, than the health effects of smoking. I believe in a freedom of choice which in turn creates every individual in our society and is and we have a rudimentary right of choosing for ourselves. Trying to regulate freedom is not the way to go. Prohibiting smoking is therefore wrong IMO and it should be a choice made by the individual in question. When it comes to restaurants, yes, there should be a seperation of smoking and non-smoking rooms and people who don't want to inhale the 'killing' smoke well they should, as they have a freedom of choice as well, have the possibility of not being present in smoky confined spaces.

    It's wrong and ludicrous to ban it completely. They might as well take away our freedom while they're at it. Public places esp.

    And no, I don't smoke.
    Well I am sure non smokers are over the moon about the ban, atleast they have the freedom of not breathing in the smoke.

    But to "people who don't want to inhale the 'killing' smoke well they should, as they have a freedom of choice as well, have the possibility of not being present in smoky confined spaces.", I dont agree with that, why should someone not visit a public place because they dont want to breath in the smoke? Smokers are given the option of standing outside in the open fresh air for a couple of minutes to have a fag so there not causing people in a enclosed place to breath in there smoke.

    Just my opinion. ^^
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless I missed something, i.e. the nationalisation of pubs and restaurants lets get one thing absolutely clear: pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants, cafes, etc are private places. Some people have this bizarre idea that pubs and bars are obliged to accommodate their every need. The view of some that they have a 'right' to be able to go in any pub or bar and for it to be smoke-free is disgusting and completely incompatible with respect for private property. If I owned a pub and wanted to smoke in my pub and allowed my customers to smoke that is entirely my decision. Absolutely anything less than that is an infringement on the right of business owners to run their business independently. If you don't like smoking in pubs don't go to pubs that allow it. Pubs aren't some public convenience you subsidise in your council taxes.

    And any person low enough to report a noble landlord ignoring the ban should be put in solitary confinement with a chain smoking Frenchman.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's an old chestnut of an argument, and utter bollocks too. Shall we do away with all food hygiene laws too? All the laws that say the building has to be safe? That you have to be a suitable person to own a pub?

    I know, lets allow racist shopkeepers to ban black people from their shops! Their shop, their rules. Lets let Stagecoach ban gay people from their buses- their bus, their rules!

    What? You don't agree with that? Then you're a hypocrite.

    Deep Fathom, what's the difference between somewhere that serves food and somewhere that does not?

    I don't call for prohibition, but its about time that places that are open to the public reflect the fact that over 4/5 of the population DO NOT SMOKE, yet it only takes one person chuffing away on cheap fags to ruin it for everyone.

    Out of interest, why does one person's "right" to smoke in a room override everyone else's "right" to peaceful enjoyment? Why should people allergic to smoke have to stay at home just so that you don't have to nip outside for five minutes? Nobody has yet satisfactorily answered that, and I've been asking it for five years.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Out of interest, why does one person's "right" to smoke in a room override everyone else's "right" to peaceful enjoyment? Why should people allergic to smoke have to stay at home just so that you don't have to nip outside for five minutes? Nobody has yet satisfactorily answered that, and I've been asking it for five years.

    Hmm why can't you all just learn to love smoking?!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    I take it you've had someone blow smoke in your face then? Or had someone walk past you who has just had a cigarette?:yuck:
    Every day. Although if you're in the street you'd have to be pretty close to someone to be able to tell if they'd just had a fag or not...

    But I walk past more cars. Cars which are massively more damaging to the environment (and I would say my health, but I am fully aware that in smoking I am not doing myself any favours in that respect, however, I'm sure cars are more damaging to non-smokers than ONE POXY CIGARETTE is).

    Fair enough ban it in places where you can't completely segregate the two, but why the hell should I have to go outside in the cold to have a cigarette when it is perfectly possible for me just be sat in another room?
    HIT wrote:
    Who knows, in about 20 years down the line they may ban smoking altogether. But in the mean time it seems they are taking steps to get people to cut down so to speak. Give it a few years and they probably will ban smoking in the street, or something like that more drastic.

    No they won't. Because like Thunderstruck (I think) said, doing that is gonna leave one fuck off hole in their budget. I'm paying nearly 6 times the amount I was paying in Peru for the exact same packet of cigarettes, and the large majority of that extra money is going to the government. If they got rid of people smoking in the street, most people would give up, leaving the government in a bit of a shit situation money-wise. Why do you think we've got 10 packs and fucking...FOURTEEN packs of cigarettes and barely anywhere else has? Because the government are trying to get us to quit? Fuck off.
Sign In or Register to comment.