Smoking Ban England

That has to be one of the rudest things I've ever read. As RS8MB0R8 pointed out, sometimes you're on your way to being something else, someone more skilled, if that kind of thing inspires you to sacrifice your 'rights' a little more. And what if you're not though? Do you lose your right to clean, fresh air automatically by not having a degree or whatever you consider worthy of your respect?

This is what I meant earlier about smokers being bitter about this.

I think it was here I read years ago someone comparing sencondhand smoke to shit. How would you feel if someone else was throwing you their shit on your food while you're having dinner? Or if you were so unskilled and worthy of pity that ypou had to wade your way through that to clear away a table?

Coming up on four years since I gave up.

Oh Jesus, do I agree with you. Smoking rooms have been some of the least pleasant places I have visited in my life.

BUT - it doesn't need to be that way. There are already many great restaurants where extraction means that you wouldn't notice someone smoking at the table behind you and most of the remaining problems could be solved an increase in the available floor-space.

Insist on double doors or smoking on a higher-floor of the building.

Exactly that. Limit smoking say, 25% of public establishments and the 25% of the population who smoke, or the other 25% who don't mind a bit of passive smoking will be happy to work there.

Why should smokers have to avoid non-smoking establishments just because others dont like the smell?

If you are with non-smoking friends who don't mind your habit, why the hell shouldn't you be allowed to light-up if they have all consented?

[QUOTE=Solid Sambora;760618]


The most militant anti's are not bothered about whether or not people smoke in public, but whether people smoke at all - see RS8MBOR8's opening comment - "smoking is disgusting...."

And there are plenty who feel stronger than him.

Sex in public, were it allowed and even half way socially acceptable would lead to a major breakdown in our ability to get anything done as a society.

To use your body for getting in fights has an obvious and immediate victim. Smoking in a sealed room does not.

I can only assume that as a smoker, you recognise that there are positive aspects to the habit and that people do have rights to decide for themselves what risks to take.

If the same 5'2" skinhead started abusing an asian girl because of her race, you would still step in, despite your fear, knowing that what he was doing was completely indefensible.

Just curious, but before the ban, did you smoke when you were in a pub with your friends?

The publicans who want to benefit from offering a warm, inviting atmosphere to smokers.

Again, no compulsion.

At least i have achieved something today.

Good for them. But if they have already wasted 11 years of compulsary education, why should they not suffer the (slighly irritating, but in the big scheme of things, really pretty minor), consequences?

Not to mention, the obvious fact, that I am advocating a solution where this need never happen.

You lose your right to clean, fresh air the moment you walked into a private, indoor venue where it was clearly and publically advertise that smoking is permitted.

I am not a smoker

This is clearly a crap analogy (pun intended).

At this point, I'm aware I'm banging on, but feel the need to debate this on issues, rather than simply my opinion of other people's lifestyles, so will probably keep rebutting.

I hope you're just trying (and failing) to be funny here BeExcellent, because if not you're only coming across as an arrogant twat.

True, I have been condesending to those who turned down the offer of a free education, but you worked hard at school, right?

And I may have insinuated RS8MB0RA couldn't follow a logical argument, but he did ignore almost every one of my clearly expressed points.

As for my attitude towards anti-smokers, I'm happy to stear clear of them. Just grant me the space to do so. As you said yourself "you want to go somewhere that you might want to smoke, you should be the one to specifically seek that out, not vice-versa."

If I smoked, and if such places were still legal, I would be more than happy to.

Even as a non-smoker, I would chose these places just to be free of piety.

Let me know if i've missed anything.

Free? Well up to college level is generally free, but you want to go to uni you have to pay your way generally. Not to mention that not everyone wants to study anything, or perhaps there is nothing they are interested in. Doesn't mean you should be rude to them.

Personally I went to college and uni, and I've just finished my degree and am looking for work - but I certainly wouldn't look down on a person who left school and does any specific job; those jobs need doing right? I have more respect for a person who works long hours for little pay than for someone who sits on their arse in an office doing something piss easy just because they went to uni.

As for smoking, I can agree with you to a point about having seperate areas where it is allowed, but the extra expense involved would put off a lot of places, and the whole point of the ban is that it stops people working in these places from having to inhale smoke just because people in their place of work are allowed to do it. Even with seperate areas you need someone to go in there to clean up and whatever they need to do, so it wouldn't work out like that.

Again though I'll say (as you didn't reply to me before, so I don't know if you saw my post) that a smoker should be the one who has to seek out a specific smoke-friendly atmosphere, and not vice versa. Even a smoker may not wish to smoke all the time, so they might want to visit a non-smoking atmosphere, and no-one should have to go out of their way to be able to breathe fresh air. Only smokers should have to go out of their way to find places where they can do it without inflicting it onto others.

Oh, and given that the law is in place this is all very much redundant debate.

I would however like the oppurtunity to raise my hand to my nose, wiggle my fingers and say "na na na na na" because the ban is now law, so it's tough ****ing luck.

Smokers would be happy to do this, but an outright ban leaves them no option.

Yes, workers would have to spend a very, very small amount of time in rooms where people are, or have recently been smoking, but there are more than enough smokers to fill these jobs and no evidence that this minimal amount of exposure to second hand smoke causes genuine damage. We are talking seconds per day here, rather than several hours bar-staff are currently exposed to.

Just don't be surprised if in response a 7ft skinhead decides to light-up at the bus shelter : )