Smoking ban
-
Is that anything like blood sausage?
---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums
I don't know what blood sausage is, but black pudding is held together with congealed blood. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
mostly
What you mean it is banned in some counties but there is no state wide ban.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
I still don't get how people can enjoy a meal while breathing smoke.
Generally its after the meal, or in between courses. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
farmer giles wrote:
Generally its after the meal, or in between courses.
So tables besides you should stop eating when you're done your meal ?
-
There's a smoke ban here in public in-door places. I love it. I absolutely love it. This simply means that I can enjoy playing pool, for instance, without having to jeopardize my health. If smokers want to die ahead of schedule, fine. Just don't drag me into the mass suicide. :)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
This simply means that I can enjoy playing pool, for instance, without having to jeopardize my health.
I seem to recall a number of unhealthy aspects to pool halls besides smoke! :doh: Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
There's big issue here in Montréal concerning the future smake ban and Bingo Halls. Those halls are the last bastions of hard-core smokers; mostly old ladies who spend a lot of time there, smoking and spending money ...
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
It should be left entirely up to each individual establishment. If enough people really don't want to be around smoking smoke free pubs can be opened to serve them. Other pubs can allow smoking and make lots of money off the smokers. As long as no one is being forced to go some place where other people are enjoying smoking what harm is done? Talk about forcing your moral opinion on someone. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
It should be left entirely up to each individual establishment. If enough people really don't want to be around smoking smoke free pubs can be opened to serve them. Other pubs can allow smoking and make lots of money off the smokers. As long as no one is being forced to go some place where other people are enjoying smoking what harm is done? Talk about forcing your moral opinion on someone. "You get that which you tolerate"
I second this motion. Preserve freedom, let the free market sort it out. I speak in a little known dialect of English called Josh. It is the spoken language of all people governed by the sovereign entity known as Josh. Please do not try to correct it, as I speak perfect Josh. Legalize Marijuana
-
It should be left entirely up to each individual establishment. If enough people really don't want to be around smoking smoke free pubs can be opened to serve them. Other pubs can allow smoking and make lots of money off the smokers. As long as no one is being forced to go some place where other people are enjoying smoking what harm is done? Talk about forcing your moral opinion on someone. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
It should be left entirely up to each individual establishment. If enough people really don't want to be around smoking smoke free pubs can be opened to serve them. Other pubs can allow smoking and make lots of money off the smokers. As long as no one is being forced to go some place where other people are enjoying smoking what harm is done? Talk about forcing your moral opinion on someone.
One of the standard arguments in this part of the world concerns the staff who work in the pubs (who are exposed to smoke for greater periods than a typical customer). It is regarded as an occupational health and safety issue. No doubt you could argue that they can choose not to work there, but people needing a job may not have much choice. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
This simply means that I can enjoy playing pool, for instance, without having to jeopardize my health.
I seem to recall a number of unhealthy aspects to pool halls besides smoke! :doh: Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
Such as..? :~
-
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
There's a whiff of hypocrisy here: smoking will still be allowed in the Commons bar, for instance. Anyway, if our mendacious politicos really meant to do good they'd outlaw tobacco and finished with: this is just weasel politics influenced by the taxes raised off the backs of smokers. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
A good incentive to quit, however the anality of it is amusing.
-
It should be left entirely up to each individual establishment. If enough people really don't want to be around smoking smoke free pubs can be opened to serve them. Other pubs can allow smoking and make lots of money off the smokers. As long as no one is being forced to go some place where other people are enjoying smoking what harm is done? Talk about forcing your moral opinion on someone. "You get that which you tolerate"
The problem is, the entire society has to deal with the cost of damages created by tobaccos. So IMO your proposal could be valid if smokers would assume entirely the cost of the healthcares they will need. As long as their choice has an impact on everybody else's life, then everybody has his/her words to say.
-
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
As an ex-smoker, I am totally in favor of such a ban. If people have the right to smoke, people also have the right to live with it. The second category has to endure the consequences of the choices of the first one, not the opposite. Then in public places the will of the second category should prevail. Freedom is the power to do anything which does not harm another. So clearly smoking in public places is not a freedom.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
Apparently, the House of Commons is classed as a "palace" which means the bars will be exempt from the ban. If true, then it shows what a bunch of fucking hypocrites these people are. As a smoker (I fell off the wagon at New Years), I actually welcome this, as every time I have tried to quit in the past, it has been the combination of smoky pub/booze that has pushed me back on the fags. It will make it easier to give up, but I know a few publicans who are terrified of this ban losing them business. Still, the writing has been on the wall for a long time now, and the stupid "partial ban" was never going to fly. All or nothing I guess. Next summer will be an interesting time. Hell, if bars in Dublin can survive without smoking, I'm sure things won't be that bad. However, the cynic in me does wonder whether the powers that be really give a flying fuck about the public health issue - let's face it, the Treasury makes over £7 BILLION a year form duty on cigarettes (and, BTW, it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses). I think this is more do to with the fear of cancer-riddled ex-bar workers suing in the future.
-
There's a whiff of hypocrisy here: smoking will still be allowed in the Commons bar, for instance. Anyway, if our mendacious politicos really meant to do good they'd outlaw tobacco and finished with: this is just weasel politics influenced by the taxes raised off the backs of smokers. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
smoking will still be allowed in the Commons bar, for instance
And the problem with that is...? :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Apparently, the House of Commons is classed as a "palace" which means the bars will be exempt from the ban. If true, then it shows what a bunch of fucking hypocrites these people are. As a smoker (I fell off the wagon at New Years), I actually welcome this, as every time I have tried to quit in the past, it has been the combination of smoky pub/booze that has pushed me back on the fags. It will make it easier to give up, but I know a few publicans who are terrified of this ban losing them business. Still, the writing has been on the wall for a long time now, and the stupid "partial ban" was never going to fly. All or nothing I guess. Next summer will be an interesting time. Hell, if bars in Dublin can survive without smoking, I'm sure things won't be that bad. However, the cynic in me does wonder whether the powers that be really give a flying fuck about the public health issue - let's face it, the Treasury makes over £7 BILLION a year form duty on cigarettes (and, BTW, it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses). I think this is more do to with the fear of cancer-riddled ex-bar workers suing in the future.
There at least 2 government departments at loggerheads here: The Treasury won't want to see any legislation that may cause the revenue stream from smoking to be cut whilst trying to make sure that the health service get as little of that revenue as possible. The Health department would like to see a complete ban on smoking since that would take pressure off them and leave budget over for non-self-inflicted disease (or more middle mamagers). And it is an emotive issue which the government vacillated over for a long time which is why they allowed a free vote and Hewitt said one thing at lunch time and voted a completely different way (according to LBC this morning). All that will really happen is that bars and restaurants will be much more pleasant places to eat and drink and died-in-the-wool smokers will be forced outside. Maybe we'll get restauarants like one I went to in LA that had a semi-covered area in which you could smoke. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Apparently, the House of Commons is classed as a "palace" which means the bars will be exempt from the ban. If true, then it shows what a bunch of fucking hypocrites these people are. As a smoker (I fell off the wagon at New Years), I actually welcome this, as every time I have tried to quit in the past, it has been the combination of smoky pub/booze that has pushed me back on the fags. It will make it easier to give up, but I know a few publicans who are terrified of this ban losing them business. Still, the writing has been on the wall for a long time now, and the stupid "partial ban" was never going to fly. All or nothing I guess. Next summer will be an interesting time. Hell, if bars in Dublin can survive without smoking, I'm sure things won't be that bad. However, the cynic in me does wonder whether the powers that be really give a flying fuck about the public health issue - let's face it, the Treasury makes over £7 BILLION a year form duty on cigarettes (and, BTW, it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses). I think this is more do to with the fear of cancer-riddled ex-bar workers suing in the future.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses
In 1997 the cost for the French "Securité Sociale" was estimated to ~ €3billion. This cost was one-third of the losses caused by tobacco, the others parts coming from a shorter life, loss in productivity and loss of uncollected taxes.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
the powers that be really give a flying f*** about the public health issue
IMO, public deciders are corrupted by the tobacco lobbies. It is illogical that an industry causing so many deaths, so much harm, can continue its business without intervention of the public powers.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses
In 1997 the cost for the French "Securité Sociale" was estimated to ~ €3billion. This cost was one-third of the losses caused by tobacco, the others parts coming from a shorter life, loss in productivity and loss of uncollected taxes.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
the powers that be really give a flying f*** about the public health issue
IMO, public deciders are corrupted by the tobacco lobbies. It is illogical that an industry causing so many deaths, so much harm, can continue its business without intervention of the public powers.
-
Actually, I think the government would prefer it if people dropped dead the day after they retire! Then the whole thorny issue of pensions goes away! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
I think the government would prefer it if people dropped dead the day after they retire!
I've had that feeling for a while now. At least I'm not alone in thinking that.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
-
The problem is, the entire society has to deal with the cost of damages created by tobaccos. So IMO your proposal could be valid if smokers would assume entirely the cost of the healthcares they will need. As long as their choice has an impact on everybody else's life, then everybody has his/her words to say.
K(arl) wrote:
As long as their choice has an impact on everybody else's life, then everybody has his/her words to say.
Which is the best indication of just how the social welfare state inevitably eats away at personal liberty. You could justify the termination of just about any freedom imaginable by that same logic. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
digital man wrote:
smoking will still be allowed in the Commons bar, for instance
And the problem with that is...? :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
Good point: I think it should be actively encouraged. :laugh: www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com