Smoking Ban in Public Houses

You're overlooking one extrordinarly important factor here (well, two actually). The publicans, and public licences. Licences are few and far between in the first place. Then the publicans are trying to maximise their revenues, so will go for the base denominator. So irregardless of choice, the publicans were never going to risk their cosy little cartel money spinner. So you only have the ILLUSION of choice.

And you're overlooking the reason behind pubs. They're businesses. They're there for the owners to make money. If the publicians saw a market for non-smoking pubs they would open them. But non-smokers are too busy complaining about smokers that they've never requested the other option.

Its not an illusion of choice. Its a choice in reality. Just as its my choice not to enter some pubs, becuase they're targeted for the gay population. Twenty years ago, there would have been no pubs that openly acknowledged that they catered for the gay sector. Publicians saw the market and opened up.

Non-smokers enter a nitelink knowing that there will be smoke even though it's banned. They don't have a choice other than "don't go in there" which isn't much of a solution. So what's your point?

The choice is there, in regards to the pubs. Non-smokers know that pubs are smoking areas. They know prior to going in. AS for the Nitelink, i'm totally aginst smoking there.

But that aside, this isn't legislation to stop you smoking in a pub. It's legislation to safeguard the health of people in a workplace. Their wellbeing & rights come first since they work there day in day out whilst you frequent the place once or maybe twice a week/month/whatever

However the same cant be said for those employees that do actually smoke. Also this is for all places of work, and well frankly i don't like the government telling me that i can't smoke at work when i'm the only one there. My smoking doesn't affect anyone, but yet i can't smoke.

I'm sorry, but growler is right here. It's not an inconvenience. It's a bloody health hazard. How'd you like to work in an old building surrounded by asbestos?

I walk down o'connell street, during the day, or by Trinity college, and i'm covered in smoke by cars going by. I don't see too many gardai enforcing bans on the smoke coming from cars. And i daresay that smoke is worse than any passive cigarrette smoking.

We've all accepted the smoke from cars as being an inconvenience.

However, i do agree that non-smokers have the right to having a smoke free environment. However, i believe that smokers have the right to surround themselves with smoke. This just points to having separte pubs for non-smokers and smokers.

From what I've seen, the smokers don't give two flying f*cks what the non-smokers think since they'll light up when they want anyway. And yes, I've had to leave a room/enclosed space because the smoke was so bad it was stinging the back of my eyes.

Again you're grouping all smokers as being ignorant ****-heads. The majority are not. At least once you get out of Dublin. And i daresay you'll find if u ask any smoker that the majority will also dislike having the room full of smoke. Our eyes are just as sensitive to smoke as yours.

Yet you don't see why non-smokers can get quite militant on this topic?

No i don't. I can understand & sympathise the health issue, however most non-smokers go beyond that. They talk of their rights and get quite insulting. At the end of the day, everyone has agreed that passive smoking is bad. However non-smokers just don't want to accept the idea of having separate environments. They're fixated on banning smoking completely.

No no no no no no. We've given the publicans the choice. They've not lifted their bloated arses to help one bit. No grants. No monetary help. Just a simple plain option. Either suffer a blanket ban, or show us that you have sufficient ventilation which meets criteria 'x' and we'll allow you have smoking on your premises, subject to spot-inspections and yoru licence recinded.

No no no no. You haven't demanded smoke free pubs, without legistlation. Markets come about from demand. You haven't created trhe market yourselves. Its not in their interests to lift their arses until they know that they'll get enough people in for their non-smoking pub.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I was rather hoping you’d address my points as I’d asked you to too, but you’re not a fan of practicing what you preach. Anyhow...

-i have answered some of your questions previously. im not going back and answering every single question which would take a long time. i may not have replied to some questions since i agree with a lot that you say. i only wanted you to answer one and you did, thanks. if you have any particular question then please do ask again.

"Were heroin or crack legal; then smoking of the drug could be done in designated areas. This would not necessarily be the same room in an establishment, or even the same establishment, however both users and non-users would be catered for."
-i agree. i would love if this was introduced for tobacco smoking. a separate room in the pub where smoke could not enter into the no-smoking area. as i said previously a nosmoking area in a open room is similar to being allowed to urinate and defecate in the shallow end of a swimming pool and hope it wont go anywhere else. in other threads i have said there should be "smoking houses" set up. it was always my understanding that a public house was a place primarily to drink alcoholic beverages not to smoke or eat. if smoking houses were setup the smokers probably wouldnt mind people drinking around them since it doesnt damage their (the smokers) livers or brains.

"With regard to those who work in such establishments, I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of jobs that can be harmful to one’s heath (look at modern stress levels, for a start). Appropriate compensation (danger money, if you will) and/or vocational employment (e.g. many who work in the Café’s of Amsterdam are Hash users themselves) may be one suggested solution for workers."
-i agree again. there are dangerous jobs and there is usually government intervention/guidelines/laws to minimise the risk of physical harm to workers in these jobs. welders must have welding hoods to remove toxic gas, builders must have sound scaffolding and safety harnesses and hats, hospital workers have special suits and gloves when handling bioharzardous materials. i am sure many building companies and welding business owners would love to save a fortune by not having any government regulations in place, i am sure they were as upset as the publicans when the laws were introduced to protect their employees, as they predicted their profits would drop too. they simply upped the price of their trade/product/service which the publicans will probably do too. the government is simply trying to protect employees/citizens from unneccesary risk in the workplace, this is nothing new. if smoking houses were setup then i would agree the workers should have to live with the risk of physical harm and they would hopefully be paid accordingly. it is a sad fact that many young people working in bars cannot find other employment with a healthy environment.

"however, I am suggesting rather than simply condemning. Smokers are certainly not blameless either, but neither should they be demonised and an attitude that promotes such division is doomed to achieve anything more than revenge."
-i do not hate smokers as you have previously claimed, i am a nicotine addict myself and fully understand their/our plight.i can honestly say i never would have started smoking if it had never been allowed be smoked in pubs. lower inhibitions due to alcohol lower a persons willpower, so it is the perfect environment to become addicted and readdicted to a drug even though you know it is harmful. but i do not like being subjected to physical harm against my will, to which ill get the reply then stay indoors hooked up to an oxygen machine, no thanks. if you tell a bus driver a guy is smoking upstairs they do nothing, if you tell them a guy is smoking heroin they throw him off, ive witnessed both these cases. the fact is that tobacco has been around so long and is smoked by a large % that it is accepted as the norm, many suffer from the mentality "if its a legal drug it must be grand and tolerated" "if a drug is illegal it must be bad and cant be tolerated". suggest making tobacco illegal and is is dismissed as impossible, then ask why. it is because it is a drug of such extreme addiction that it would cause social mayhem if it was made illegal. it is a terrible useless drug. it never made me feel good, just gets rid of the horrible withdrawl symtpoms for a while. if tobacco was only dicovered today would its smoking be tolerated in pubs? it wouldnt even be considered for legalisation.

"But ultimately, if your attitude is one of ‘Us versus Them’ then there is no point in debating the issue - to do so would be as useful as trying to explain rap music to the Grand Master of the Klu Klux Klan.
And to date, you have given ample indication that you do indeed view the matter in such an extreme bipolar fashion."
-i just like to use analogies and views in black and white to make people rethink about tobacco from a different angle, rather than the little vice that they were brought up with all their lives and so accept as normal behaviour which everybody should tolerate because they can/do. if tobacco was only smoked by 0.5% of the population would it be so tolerated in pubs? would you have 200 people in a smokey room saying "fair play to yer man smoking over there its his right, its causing me harm but at least hes not forced to go outside, the poor fellas an addict you know, it wouldnt be fair". people dont want to go to no smoking pubs since lots of their friends smoke and so insisting on going to a nosmoking pub excludes them from a night out. going to a smoking pub excludes nobody.

Lemming

Originally posted by klaz
And you're overlooking the reason behind pubs. They're businesses. They're there for the owners to make money. If the publicians saw a market for non-smoking pubs they would open them. But non-smokers are too busy complaining about smokers that they've never requested the other option.

And I've already answered why they wont open non-smoking pubs here and elsewhere. But to get specific, a) they get a cut off the cigaretttes sold, and b) it helps dry your throat and thus make you 'thirsty' and try to "cool down". It's just another way of making you buy more drink in the pub, alongside peanuts, crisps, and loud music.

On top of that, the licences are very difficult to get. Thus it's not just a case of "opening up a new place down the street". Christ, if it were that easy we wouldn't have the outrageous prices et al. that we have now!

Incidentally, who are the non-smokers to demand a non-smoking service to? A publican? he'll tell them to f*ck off. A drinks company? Not their responsibility nor area of expertise. The cigarette companies? Pffft. They'll just try and offer you free ciggies probably. Tell me WHO I'm supposed to approach to pressurise get a non-smoking pub? The government? I'll stop there .....

However the same cant be said for those employees that do actually smoke.

Have you ever seen a member of a pub lighting up behind the bar whilst working? I'd be very surprised if you have.

Also this is for all places of work, and well frankly i don't like the government telling me that i can't smoke at work when i'm the only one there. My smoking doesn't affect anyone, but yet i can't smoke.

Smoke lingers long after you've finished your ciggy. So whilst you may not be smoking when someone enters the room, they may damn well get a full blast of it anyway.

I walk down o'connell street, during the day, or by Trinity college, and i'm covered in smoke by cars going by. I don't see too many gardai enforcing bans on the smoke coming from cars. And i daresay that smoke is worse than any passive cigarrette smoking.

We've all accepted the smoke from cars as being an inconvenience.

The problem here is that currently (from an every-day standpoint, since environmentally friendly cars are being developed at the moment) not a lot can be done about it. Unlike the work-place situation.

However, i do agree that non-smokers have the right to having a smoke free environment. However, i believe that smokers have the right to surround themselves with smoke. This just points to having separte pubs for non-smokers and smokers.

And as has been spelled out elsewhere why having segregated pubs wont work. I'm not going to bother spelling it out.

Again you're grouping all smokers as being ignorant ****-heads. The majority are not. At least once you get out of Dublin.

Or take the drink factor out of it. Once you've had a couple of pints in you, you wont give two flying f*cks. I'll agree that most aren't ignorant ****. Add the drink equation and things take a nose-dive sadly.

And i daresay you'll find if u ask any smoker that the majority will also dislike having the room full of smoke. Our eyes are just as sensitive to smoke as ours.

So it's a ventilation problem now? Precisely what I'd be in favour of in the long run. The publicans have caused this through cynical business practices, so I say we let them sweat. They've made the non-smokers uncomfortable up till now, and until they pull the finger out, it'll unfortunately be the smokers getting the short straw. At the end of the day, look at the lad behind the bar with the keys as your guilty culprit.

I can understand & sympathise the health issue, however most non-smokers go beyond that. They talk of their rights and get quite insulting.

Because whenever the topic gets brought up, smokers dismiss the non-smokers as whingers.

However non-smokers just don't want to accept the idea of having separate environments. They're fixated on banning smoking completely.

I've said it elsewhere, and I'm starting to get very f*cking sick of saying it over and over. I'm in favour of a blanket ban, but not indefinitely. I'm in favour of a defacto blanket ban followed by the ability to have this ban lifeted from a premises subject to environment criteria.

No no no no. You haven't demanded smoke free pubs, without legistlation. Markets come about from demand.

See my above comments about who to approach.

You haven't created trhe market yourselves.

See my comments re. licences. On top of that, the vintners will simply apply pressure to force you to play ball with them. They blocked a cafe from getting a drinks licence in Dublin last year. 3 super-pubs vs. a tiny cafe that could fit about 25 people. F ... F ... S ... !!!

Its not in their interests to lift their arses until they know that they'll get enough people in for their non-smoking pub.

See my above points about who to approach & the super-pub comment

Jimi-Spandex

I'd just like to explain my "attitude". Apologies if I sounded slightly condacending last time.

I was merely stating that I don't smoke solely to irritate you. It's not my motive.

The majority of people I hang around with in college are non-smokers and as such am sensitive to ye're sensitivity. I don't smoke around a table of mostly non smokers, I usually ask if people mind if I smoke anyway. If I am asked to put out my cigarette for whatever reason by someone, I do.

My main problem is that of choice. I recognised your right not to be irritated or have your health detrimentally affected by my "filthy habit". This would be solved by having smoking and non-smoking pubs.

Incentive for vitners to set up such pubs being a difference in tax between the two. Higher prices for the smokers. We will pay it, those of us who have been smoking for years have accepted something in the region of a 100% increase in price in five or six years, we are used to this by now.

As for the health and safety in the workplace aspect of things, not every workplace should be treated the same, why? because they're not the same. I am not negating everyones right to a safe working enviroment but as mentioned in a previous post, certain jobs have certain dangers. Bouncers, Firemen, Police, Electrician, Building, in fact nearly every job has certain dangers attached to it.

If you don't want to suffer possible respiratory problems don't work in a smokey enviroment. If you don't want to suffer back trouble don't be work in furniture removal.

Lemming

Originally posted by Jimi-Spandex

Incentive for vitners to set up such pubs being a difference in tax between the two. Higher prices for the smokers. We will pay it, those of us who have been smoking for years have accepted something in the region of a 100% increase in price in five or six years, we are used to this by now.

Therefore, smoking pub = more money. At the end of the day from a publican's point of view, "Money talks, Bullsh*t walks".

As for the health and safety in the workplace aspect of things, not every workplace should be treated the same, why? because they're not the same. I am not negating everyones right to a safe working enviroment but as mentioned in a previous post, certain jobs have certain dangers. Bouncers, Firemen, Police, Electrician, Building, in fact nearly every job has certain dangers attached to it.

If you don't want to suffer possible respiratory problems don't work in a smokey enviroment. If you don't want to suffer back trouble don't be work in furniture removal.

This is a really bad argument. All of those jobs have some sort of training, equipment, back-up to facilitate the lowering the chance of an incident occurring. Pub workers don't. And the publicans haven't lifted their arses to do anything about it either. It's the equivalent of the garda commissioner sending gardai out on the beat with absolutely "NO" equipement/training/backup or a building site manager not providing safety netting/harnesses/hard-hats/etc.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Of course there is an ulterior motive on the part of many (not all) anti-smokers, but I’ve never implied a conspiracy, organized or otherwise. The manner in which some posters here are frothing at the mouth at the thought of revenging themselves against anyone who’s ever lit up in a pub is blatantly indicative of this. Is it conspiratorial? No. Prejudice and hate seldom needs to be.

if pubs had always been no smoking and a law was being brought in that they could allow smoking then smokers would be pleased and saying its their right and the nonsmokers would be complaining saying their rights count too. i wouldnt go around under the impression that the smokers were "frothing at the mouth" delighted at the thoughts of revenge. that they can now physically harm the nonsmokers and rightly so because they had to smoke outside for years. the "ulterior motive" of the nonsmokers is their health, it is not ulterior or hidden, it is not revenge, it is not hate. if you choose to consider it hate then so be it, your definition of hate is obviously different from mine and you would say i hate my father, brother and sister about 1/2 of my friends AND myself.

davelerave

Originally posted by rubadub
somebody mentioned that noise will be next on the list to be banned. what if somebody in the pub had a radio on so loud that it was causing severe damage to their eardrums and causing "passive ear drum damage" to others, should this be allowed?


if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine... still waiting for a reply to this from ANYBODY.....

its decriminalised not relegalised ,by the sound of it you're on crack

niallb

Originally posted by Lemming

Have you ever seen a member of a pub lighting up behind the bar whilst working? I'd be very surprised if you have.

Technically, they are serving food, and it's a crime to smoke while doing so.

Personally I've hardly gone to the cinema since they banned smoking in them.
I always thought we'd get a cinema smokers club, but no joy yet and it's been 15 years or so (?).
Seperate smoking pubs, or probably clubs with membership lists, would be acceptable if a bit bizarre.
The suggestion of running such establishments on a different tax bracket is interesting and if anyone would pay that, it's smokers.

Maybe this action will help the Smoking Community unite and demand some rights.
We pay a shocking percentage of all tax paid in this country. Great fun for Charlie McCreevy if we all DID give up.

Most smokers will put out their cigarette immediately if asked.
Most will be cautious about lighting up if no-one else is smoking.
Many of us are getting to the point where smoking is our main outdoor hobby.

Niall B.

Smokers of the world ignite! :-}-~

rubadub

Originally posted by davelerave
its decriminalised not relegalised ,by the sound of it you're on crack

what??? what is decriminalised? both heroin and freebase cocaine were legal at one time in this country so they could be relegalised, if i meant decriminalised i would have said it. if it was only decriminalised it is still illegal and wouldnt have to be tolerated anywhere. cannabis is decriminalised in a few countries, it doesnt mean you can smoke it in pubs in all those countries

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
And I've already answered why they wont open non-smoking pubs here and elsewhere. But to get specific, a) they get a cut off the cigaretttes sold, and b) it helps dry your throat and thus make you 'thirsty' and try to "cool down". It's just another way of making you buy more drink in the pub, alongside peanuts, crisps, and loud music.

Fuinny, I could have sworn that the only non-smoking pub I ever even heard of in Ireland closed because of lack of business.

It wasnt that they lost margin on ciggies, or on decreased drink quantity sold.....it was that virtually no-one went to drink there.

Given how many vehemently anti-smokers I hear about in any discussion on the topic, I'm amazed that they didnt put their money where their mouth was when this place opened, and instead stayed away in droves...

Maybe they preferred some smoky place that they constantly complain about to the smoke-free pub that they always say they wanted.
Or is it a case of "I want my choice of pub to be smoking free", rather than "I want a smoking free pub" ???

Certainly seems so to me.

jc

shotamoose

Maybe it was an alcohol-free pub too?

rubadub

if you bothered to think about it maybe you would realise that most non-smokers have friends who smoke. or do you also think most nonsmokers HATE smokers

Stark

Have a smoking friend who has a really selfish attitude to the whole issue. The two of us are getting coloured contact lenses for the laugh (the cool funky ones). The second he has the contact lenses in, I'm going to take a puff of his cigarette and blow the smoke into his eyes Ah sweet revenge. Oh, to answer your question of course we non-smokers don't hate smokers

bonkey

Originally posted by rubadub
if you bothered to think about it maybe you would realise that most non-smokers have friends who smoke. or do you also think most nonsmokers HATE smokers

So, what you are saying is if we thought about it, we'd see that the reason this pub failed is because it is more important for a non-smoker to hang out with his smoker mates in a smoky environment than it is for him to have a non-smoking environment forced upon his mates.

So explain to me again the pressing need to have a blanket "no smoking" policy, or why it is a good thing?

if people weren't willing to use this pub when it was available and preferred a smoking-permitted environment, then why is it in any way a good thing that all pubs become like this one.

Its clearly not what the people want.

At least...thats what you're telling me I'd realise if I bothered to think about it.

jc

Hyzepher

Originally posted by bonkey
Fuinny, I could have sworn that the only non-smoking pub I ever even heard of in Ireland closed because of lack of business.

It wasnt that they lost margin on ciggies, or on decreased drink quantity sold.....it was that virtually no-one went to drink there.

Given how many vehemently anti-smokers I hear about in any discussion on the topic, I'm amazed that they didnt put their money where their mouth was when this place opened, and instead stayed away in droves...

Maybe they preferred some smoky place that they constantly complain about to the smoke-free pub that they always say they wanted.
Or is it a case of "I want my choice of pub to be smoking free", rather than "I want a smoking free pub" ???

Certainly seems so to me.

jc

Just out of interest - where was this pub located?

Hyzepher

rubadub

Originally posted by bonkey
So, what you are saying is if we thought about it, we'd see that the reason this pub failed is because it is more important for a non-smoker to hang out with his smoker mates in a smoky environment than it is for him to have a non-smoking environment forced upon his mates.

i never mentioned "importance". the pub was not attractive to smokers so they went elsewhere. the nonsmoker is not going to go to one pub when all their friends are in the pub next door. it seems very obvious to me that this is the reason why the pub failed. i dont think its a case of "I want my choice of pub to be smoking free", rather than "I want a smoking free pub" ???

rather "I want ALL pubs to be smoking free. so i wont have to split up from my mates and my health wont be at risk too.", rather than "I want a smoking free pub.

Originally posted by bonkey
So explain to me again the pressing need to have a blanket "no smoking" policy, or why it is a good thing?

to protect peoples health.

Originally posted by bonkey
then why is it in any way a good thing that all pubs become like this one.

to protect peoples health.

Originally posted by bonkey
Its clearly not what the people want

somebody mentioned a recent survey in this thread and the majority did want it

niallb

Originally posted by Hyzepher
Just out of interest - where was this pub located?

Galway City, can't remember the name of it offhand. Nice place though.
I think it's still non-smoking in lent...

bonkey

Originally posted by rubadub
the nonsmoker is not going to go to one pub when all their friends are in the pub next door.

Then it is only reasonable to assume that being with his smoking mates is more important to the non-smoker than his concerns about his health.

And yet it is these second-string health reasons that are the reasons for a blanket ban? Given a choice - every day of the week - he non-smokers choose to sit in the smoky environments - placing health concerns secondary to being with their mates. Then, when something like this comes up...its their mates fault and they support the law to give them the clean air they have already chosen to not have.

Of course non-smokers see it as a win-win.......becase smoker's don't deserve any better. Filthy habit.

And irrespective of how many times you wish to answer "to protect people's health", there is still no explanation of why - instead of a blanket ban - an air-level quality control couldnt be brought in.

rather "I want ALL pubs to be smoking free. so i wont have to split up from my mates and my health wont be at risk too.",

And if your mates can't handle or fully enjoy a night out without smoking, and decide to stay at home more often and have a few beers and smokes there....will you continue to sit in their smoky atmosphere at home or will you make use of your new clean smokeless pubs??? Evidence would tend to indicate that it will side with sitting with the smokers....seeing as thats the reason that you already gave for the failure of a non-smoking pub.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey

And yet it is these second-string health reasons that are the reasons for a blanket ban?

Aactually, you'll find that it's an employee thing and not whether or not micko wants to suffer johno and bocko's smoking habit that's teh primary motivator for this ban.

there is still no explanation of why - instead of a blanket ban - an air-level quality control couldnt be brought in.

TBH bonkey, the only way that an effective air-level quality control could be brought in (of which I think is a good compromise, subject to implementation), is to scare the living boll*cks out of the publicans since they're not going to move off their own backs on it.

Impose a default status of "blanket ban" & then say to the publicans, "right, if you want this ban lifted here's what you have to do. Then request a review by us and prove to us that you've implemented 'this' 'this' and 'this' effetively".

They'd be beating each other to get in the door of the nearest air-conditioning company (which would be amusing to watch )

sceptre

Originally posted by Lemming
Impose a default status of "blanket ban" & then say to the publicans, "right, if you want this ban lifted here's what you have to do. Then request a review by us and prove to us that you've implemented 'this' 'this' and 'this' effetively".

That's a fair enough compromise. Individual inspections of course.

de5p0i1er

I for one am against this ban as I smoke but don't drink, If this law comes in I won't be able to go out with my friends as they go for a drink when there out and I'll be left out in the cold.

Trebor

I know this is going to get me a lot of stick but any way:

why not just use this as an excuse to give up. most smokers that i have talked to have said that they want to give up but just can't motivate themselves to do it. you all know the health inplications aswell as the anti-social effects that it causes. i can understand people smoking hash as it actually has an effect but smoking just relives that craving that it causes, trust me non smokers don't go around "gumming" for a quick drag.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
why not just use this as an excuse to give up.

Perhaps this is a policy that we could extend to solve other anti-social behavioural addictions and habits?

Shall we ban the sale of alcohol so as to encourage people to give up drinking and save Society a fortune in health care bills? Or perhaps we should impose fines on unmarried couples being caught having sex so as to encourage people to give up promiscuity and save Society a fortune in health care bills?

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Perhaps this is a policy that we could extend to solve other anti-social behavioural addictions and habits?

Shall we ban the sale of alcohol so as to encourage people to give up drinking and save Society a fortune in health care bills? Or perhaps we should impose fines on unmarried couples being caught having sex so as to encourage people to give up promiscuity and save Society a fortune in health care bills?

well now i don't think that would be a good idea as drink has an effect on you as does sex, but smoking cig's only has an effect after you force yourself to take the first one which most people who i talk to agree was the worst one.

it cost's you thousands a year to smoke a drug that has no benefits. i could understand if it had an effect like drink (even though i don't drink) as you are getting somthing from the money that you spend.

what do you get from cig's that is worth that much every year?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
well now i don't think that would be a good idea as drink has an effect on you as does sex, but smoking cig's only has an effect after you force yourself to take the first one which most people who i talk to agree was the worst one.

it cost's you thousands a year to smoke a drug that has no benefits. i could understand if it had an effect like drink (even though i don't drink) as you are getting somthing from the money that you spend.

what do you get from cig's that is worth that much every year?

Hardly the point. Drinking related conditions cost the health service millions every year, not to mention related problems that affect potential non-drinkers, such as drunk driving or drink related violence. Much the same with promiscuous behaviour; between unwanted pregnancies and STD’s, probably costs us all a lot more.

That you would subjectively consider one is worth the money for you and and other is not is immaterial. All have a negative financial and, often, health impact within Society as a whole, even with those who don’t indulge themselves.

So if banning something is an acceptable form of encouragement to stop people’s bad habits, I really don’t see why you’re making subjective exceptions to the rule you yourself suggested.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Hardly the point. Drinking related conditions cost the health service millions every year, not to mention related problems that affect potential non-drinkers, such as drunk driving or drink related violence. Much the same with promiscuous behaviour; between unwanted pregnancies and STD’s, probably costs us all a lot more.

That you would subjectively consider one is worth the money for you and and other is not is immaterial. All have a negative financial and, often, health impact within Society as a whole, even with those who don’t indulge themselves.

So if banning something is an acceptable form of encouragement to stop people’s bad habits, I really don’t see why you’re making subjective exceptions to the rule you yourself suggested.

well we have to start some where so why not start with one that has no benefits?

also there is a big campaign for safe sex. something needs to be done to curb excess drinking, but both of those are a personel choice that only effects those who consent to it. (except for drink driving) where as smoke effects those around you aswell.

i think it a bit unfair for the minority to out way the majority in public spaces not to mention inflicting damage on to them

i agree with you that:

"what do you get from cig's that is worth that much every year?"

has nothing to done with this current issue but it was ment as a more personel question, to try and make you think why you smoke.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
well we have to start some where so why not start with one that has no benefits?

And why stop at that either?

also there is a big campaign for safe sex. something needs to be done to curb excess drinking, but both of those are a personel choice that only effects those who consent to it. (except for drink driving) where as smoke effects those around you aswell.

Actually no, as financially, all tax payers end up paying for the social ills incurred by any anti-social behaviour, including sexual promiscuity. Nonetheless, you seem to agree with the principle that drinking is a similar social evil that should be banned.

i think it a bit unfair for the minority to out way the majority in public spaces not to mention inflicting damage on to them

We could put them in ghettoes?

"what do you get from cig's that is worth that much every year?"

has nothing to done with this current issue but it was ment as a more personel question, to try and make you think why you smoke.

Thinking about it is irrelevant if you don’t allow a choice.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And why stop at that either?

we should never stop trying to improve the quality of life

Nonetheless, you seem to agree with the principle that drinking is a similar social evil that should be banned.

nope never said banned said curbed as in no need to get so sh*t faced that you have to be carried home, if they want to do that at home thats their business but they should not do it in public place's.

We could put them in ghettoes?

They could smoke at home.

Thinking about it is irrelevant if you don’t allow a choice.

there has been a choice up to now has it not crossed your mind why you do it?


why don't smoker's just use the nicotine patches while they are in the pub as it is the nicotine that they want. non-smokers just want the smoke gone not what causes your addiction.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Trebor
we should never stop trying to improve the quality of life

No matter the cost to our humanity?

nope never said banned said curbed as in no need to get so sh*t faced that you have to be carried home, if they want to do that at home thats their buiness but they should not do it in public place's.

I know you never said banned, but it’s the same principle, so you can’t really start preaching double standards, can you?

They could smoke at home.

But they’d still cost the heath service money. Why not just ban such a damaging habit? Also, promiscuity costs us a fortune every year in social welfare of health costs, and that’s generally practiced only at home - so a complete ban would seem to be the only option there.

why don't smoker's just use the nicotine patches while they are in the pub as it is the nicotine that they want. non-smokers just want the smoke gone not what causes your addiction.

Sure, they can give up to. That’s a choice.

No. Actually, it’s not. A choice involves differing options, not several options that are the same thing dressed up differently. That’s coercion.

Trebor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
No matter the cost to our humanity?

I know you never said banned, but it’s the same principle, so you can’t really start preaching double standards, can you?

But they’d still cost the heath service money. Why not just ban such a damaging habit? Also, promiscuity costs us a fortune every year in social welfare of health costs, and that’s generally practiced only at home - so a complete ban would seem to be the only option there.

Sure, they can give up to. That’s a choice.

No. Actually, it’s not. A choice involves differing options, not several options that are the same thing dressed up differently. That’s coercion.

i don't consider it the same principle, if people can't control the level of alchoal that they consume then there should be guidelines stating and enforced that stops them drinking to much in public.

with regards to you stating that we all have some vice that will cost the health service money i then offered a solution when the only person who needs treatment is the person who smokes and not those who have to endure passive smoking. i am looking for options to get smoking out of public houses not ban it entirely as i know that is not feasible.

AFAIK smokers are addicted to nicotine and not cig's so how is offering them nicotine not a choice but "the same thing dressed up differently"