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.
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 thought htey had. There's certainly a few smoke free pubs in my hometown - and they are doing good business.
Minimum five mins [/pedant]
But on the point, I don't have a problem standing outside. Hell I do that at home, what I object to is there being a law to make me stand outside.
Probably because there isn't a single argument for that. With this thread, and with others on this topic, it is the smokers who have argued for a compromise. Consistently.
I rarely go to the cinema, but that's more about the costs of tickets etc - but yes the underground is a major pain in the arse. But then the ban there was for safety reasons - coming straight after the Kings Cross fire. Slightly different circumstance, the ban wasn't because some people didn't like smokers.
Can you provide that proof ?
Pubs were never given any incentive to provide separate areas. There is no reason why the legislation cannot require separate well ventilated areas in pubs and restaurants where it’s feasible.
Cos so much as walking through the smoking area is going to give you cancer isn’t it?
Yawn. And for the reasons explained over and over again to you Kermit that you cannot comprehend nobody is forcing you or your fucking wife to be around cigarette smoke.
There are pubs with well ventilated non-smoking areas, there are pubs that are wholly non-smoking and there are pubs that allow smoking everywhere. You’ve failed to give any decent reason why the latter should change other than repeating over and over again the personal needs of you and your wife.
I’m a member at a private club in London where the constitution only allows full membership to men. There’s another private club nearby where membership is only available to women. I see no problem with that.
Should the Labour party allow membership to Conservative members so it’s nice and inclusive?
Private clubs are allowed to deny full membership to women and complete access to all parts of the club to women. There are still quite a few private gentlemen’s clubs in London.
Anyway I really can’t be bothered to waste my time arguing with you on this anymore. You haven’t made one decent point, you've ignored criticisms to your argument and simply whined on about you ‘right’ to tell other people what to do and your ‘right’ to ruin decent businesses simply to accommodate your needs. To be honest if I saw you and your wife down the pub I’d spend the night chain-smoking.
There has been huge investment in smoking cessation services right across the country for years now.
You can get support, nicotine replacement therapy etc on the NHS easily you know.
the only way a non smoker is going to have the same effect, is with an axe or similar
Or driving a car.
They fucking sent me a leaflet, adressed personally to me, telling me how to get help to stop smoking. Now, this would be fine, had I not stated specifically to my doctor that this is only temporary, and that I will stop in my own pace, when i decide and choose to do so, MYSELF.
Found this move by the NHS too much "in your face".
Regarding the ban - I don't think it's surprising when I say that I am totally against it.
It's as if this isn't "by the people, for the people", but rather a move to rule the people. It's sad.
One might be totally opposed cigarettes and smoke, and rejoice and welcome such a ban. Yet this isn't about that. It's about owners of private establishment, being dictated how to run their buisness. It's about the restrictions and limitations of liberties which the public enjoy.
So yes, this might not be a ban forbidding women to walk around with revealing clothes - yet what's the difference?`
After all, hasn't it been proven that wearing thongs brings a greater chance of women to catch cystitis and other infections? So after all, that's also a health risk...
Where's the limit? Who will want to listen, when they ban something you do and enjoy, which isn't to everyones liking?
Exactally the point. This is just more of the government taking power and telling us what to do. 1984? At this rate it'll be 2084 and it'll be fucknig true unless we do something. They'll start taking it away... the small things, and then it'll be too late. The current lot may be well intentioned. But who takes the reigns and gets this power after?
Somehow I don’t think this ‘clamor for smoke-free outdoor air’ extends to persecuting Hummer drivers, SUV drivers and Californians too lazy to walk three blocks. (And I’ll bet if someone banned SUV’s or somehow banned people from driving ridiculously short journeys there’d be outrage…)
Still non-smoking parks in California really doesn’t affect me so I’m not too concerned but it does make you wonder what’s up the sleeve of anti-smoking groups here. I mean they're not going to disband now they’ve got their ban in enclosed spaces are they? I’ll bet they’ll be getting advice already from California on what’s next. Few years time and there’ll be a campaign to make Hyde Park Britain’s first non-smoking outdoor space!
Anyone who claims they can smell or breah in smoke from a cigarette outdoors is a liar.
Cars produce billions of times more pollution than cigarettes ffs...
The "proof" which you ask for is slapped over the packaging for every pack of cigarettes sold in this country. They don't just cover the packs with warnings for the good of your health you know. Oh, no, wait... they do.
...this harms no-one but the participant. Now can we stop comparing smoking to stuff where only the person committing the act is getting harmed, because it's just getting old now?
Anyone with a small business will tell you that their are reams of regulations, codes, taxes, forms, orders, laws, licences, certificates and other guff that the people in government say you require just to open the doors. It's possibly one reason that people who own their own business are more in favour of a small state.
This is probably one of the first cases where the government is stepping in and telling the customer what to do and expecting the business owner to be it's policeman. Not that they don't on occasion, but the process is usually hidden.
Sure. Smoking in a building you voluntarily go to is already covered by the law. If someone's smoke has harmed you, and they did it intentionally, and you had no choice but to inhale it, and you can prove all this beyond a reasonable doubt you can claim for damages.
If "they" refers to the cigarette manufacturers,then I suggest "they" slap on warnings cos they are forced to under threat.
Secondly those warnings are aimed at the "consumer" rather than 3rd parties who it has been alleged in this thread are CERTAINLY at risk. I was asking to see the proof with regards to these "certainly at risk" 3rd parties.
V.A.T. springs to mind in the "hidden" section. Customer is told they have to pay tax on a purchase and business owner is the policeman who collects it (under duress of course)
Irrelevant.
Yeah, the ones that say that "smoking seriously harms you and others around you" must be aimed at noone then, because you as a consumer certainly don't seem to give a rat's ass.
As said, this isn't only about the banning of smoking. It's the whole thing really.
How can we look down on for example the Saudi-Arabian government for telling women how to act and dress in public spheres, when governments here are starting to do the same?
And if you want to go back to the danger of smoking, why haven't normal cars been banned to give space for el-cars?
As for electronic cars, the technology is being made, but I think the country might grind to a halt if you banned petrol cars when there isn't yet a viable alternative. Banning cigarettes in pubs, on the other hand, means that a few people have to pop outside for 15 minutes on a saturday night.
Do you believe EVERYTHING you read,not least on the front of a cigarette packet ? Do you question anything ? You just assume it is fact cos "the Government" tells you ? :shocking:
Another assumption : I am a consumer. If I was(let`s assume
Do you not believe smoking can kill?
banned in all 'PUBLIC' places ...may well not apply to private places for very much longer.
The fact you say the warnings are aimed at the actual consumer implies you believe some truth in them (otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it)..
So ... the difference is, we take all ure shit in without a filter, you get a nice amount of smoke that you choose and feel like taking in...
What happens to it? it magically turns safe for the ppl that arent smoking that cigarette? Explain??
Hopefully im going to give up, having serious thoughts about Zyban