smoking debate

[alan]

Could\'nt get my head round this..................
I was in the Metro Centre the other day and its a none smoking complex now,what I could\'nt understand is you are allowed to smoke in the open plan cafe that runs up the middle of the walkways,thought it was a one off until I walked back the same way and quite a few people were having a smoke,I also heard you are allowed to smoke at the in store cafe\'s not sure which ones though............

 

[michaeldevlin]

totally agree with chris hughes , as for the comment why should smokers always have to move , well it is them that is polluting the air . although a non smoker my self , my mother had a third of a lung out last year caused by smoking thankfully she is ok at the moment . why do you do this to yourselves and others ?

 

[gag1]

Its called freedom of choice Michael. I choose to smoke,other people dont. It doesnt give non-smokers more rights than I have.

cheers.
gag1

 

[bribones]

chris lol im chilled this is a debate is it not ?re hitler i meant just that his ideas about controling the world are similar to el tonys new ideas (dictator)

one point your all missing here is that if they do ban smoking and put prices up is the rise in crime related imports and illigal trade also the extra strain on sources policing this thing the law has much better things to do than arresting some poor bloke standing at the bus stop/factory gate having a cig ,,devlin my point about the smoker having to move is a valid one as a smoker has the same rights as a non smoker its about choice not wether its right or wrong as mark pointed out what next alcahol ?then where people with ginger hair lol ,i might be in favour of that one lmao,like tony says the people deciding on this are sitting on there butts chewing a nice fat cigar

[Edited on 3/12/2004 by bribones]

 

[mark]

Ok we are an easy target. But as for air pollution....do you drive a car?? who puts more pollution out car drivers or smokers. who his more to blame for the Asthma epidemic, smokers of car drivers.

when it comes to noxious carcinogens, your average car exhaust spews out more carcinogenic material than smokers ever will. We are an easy target and no-one has really looked at all the other reasons why cancer is so prevalent, the air we breathe is fully loaded with nasties, but smokers bear the brunt of the blame.

We live out in the wilds, so fresh air is more plentiful, luckily, and there has been a similar debate with parents at school. I will often have a fag as I walk down to school to pick the bairns up, and in that debate down there was lambasted for smoking but someone who drives a big gas guzzling 4x4 to pick their kids up when they live only a quarter of a mile from the school

 

[gag1]

Agree fully with you Mark. glass houses and stones come to mind regarding that 4x4 driver. that vehicle probably hasnt been used off-road since it came off the factory test track !.

cheers.
gag1

 

[Ell]

Chris wrote

An interesting observation here with smoking is that the addicted always seem to be in denial of the facts in front of them. It\'s like the alcoholic, drug addict or excessive gambler, they do not see the problem themselves and continue without regard for those who have to pick up the pieces afterwards.

Patronising and innacurate bollocks

Re: Coffee drinking, unless you drink coffee exclusively from reputable organic suppliers you are participating in an activity that not only has potentially harmful physical effects if supped in sufficient quantities but has Horrendous implications for local farmers and communities, the environment and wildlife. Why should Starbucks Addicts be allowed to harm others by indulging in their disgusting and selfish habit.

Over to someone else

[Edited on 3/12/2004 by Ell]

 

[Chris_Hughes]

Yes we all have a choice, however smokers as a group of people continue to inflict the by-products of their choice on the non-smoking public.

I drive a car and I have the choice to drive on the pavement or at 100 mph outside a school. But sooner or later if I was to exercise that choice I would end up killing someone and or myself. The majority of drivers are quite sensible and don\'t do these silly things. But, there are driving maniacs out there and as a deterrent the state apply laws to prohibit driving on the pavement or at a 100 mph outside a school and apply the full force of the law where necessary. I am not affronted by this impingement on my civil liberties, in fact I am glad that these laws exist as on the whole it makes the general environment on the street/road safer and more pleasant.

Smokers should not look at the no smoking regulations that will come as an infringement of their liberties (smoking as is drinking alcohol is unlikely to ever be banned) but should look at it as an opportunity to show how responsible they are so that they only do it where the impact is on themselves only - that is private enclosed spaces.

I have just started a job for a new customer who are located in a rural part of Leeds. They have nice grounds and gardens on the site, walking through the grounds the other day, I saw a park bench with a no smoking sign next to it - then I smiled and thought to myself - a result on the no smoking in open spaces front.

Ian wrote
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patronising and innacurate bollocks
---------------------------------------------------------------
To patronise you more Ian the spelling is inaccurate
But I needed something to wind up the smokers

Mark wrote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
the economics of that tell us that we might not be that big a minority!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics should never be a factor in deciding where people are allowed to smoke. But sadly it probably will.

 

[bribones]

I have the choice to drive on the pavement or at 100 mph outside a school

i think youl find you dont have that choice thats what roads are there for and you pay taxes to drive on them the same way in which us smokers pay taxes to allow us to smoke

the key word here is PUBLIC ,open to all ,what it boils down to is if i go out for a pint ive got to leave said pint and go outside for a cig resulting in my pint being stolen if smoking is banned in public houses they then become non public houses or to be correct non smokers only public houses result folks will take to drinking at home
ive thought of away round this problem im going to open a smoke easy a place for smokers to go and indulge when the ban becomes the farce it will no doubt be

[Edited on 3/12/2004 by bribones]

 

[Ell]

Yes we all have a choice, however smokers as a group of people continue to inflict the by-products of their choice on the non-smoking public

likewise the coffee drinker.

To patronise you more Ian the spelling is inaccurate

a job for a new customer who are located in a rural part of Leeds

1\'s apiece then.

 

[bribones]

lol @ ell
on the subject of coffee what about the third world countries that are exploited so you can have your addictive morning beverage

 

[mark]

Economics should never be a factor in deciding where people are allowed to smoke. But sadly it probably will.

the only answer then would be to put your money where your mouth is and agree to pay a premium to every pub/cafe/coffee house/restaurant you ever go into to have it a smoke free environment and top up the lost revenue of that establishment by refusing entry to smokers

the economics of it are that whilst non-smokers tend to harp on about the cost to the nhs of treating smokers, they are in complete denial regarding the amount of revenue we contribute to the exchequer.

non-smokers get equal treatment on the nhs but their contribution via taxes will always be a lot lower, so heres a case were a \'minority\' are subsidising the \'majority\'

its a fact you can\'t hide from

Ban tobacco altogether and put 5 pence on income tax. smokers denied their weed would have the extra cash to pay for it, but would the non-smokers be happy to pay it to get what they want

No the non-smokerws want us to smoke but want us caged up like beagles to keep the revenue coming in