Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")

[JammyJim]

Im with megla on this one. Why should someone elses enjoyment of a cigarette decrease me enjoyment of sitting in a pub with mates talking all of whom dont smoke.

Not only that but the health concerns and the stink it creates.


although im tired so im going to just say 'go megla go'

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Im with megla on this one. Why should someone elses enjoyment of a cigarette decrease me enjoyment of sitting in a pub with mates talking all of whom dont smoke.

Not only that but the health concerns and the stink it creates.


although im tired so im going to just say 'go megla go'

why should someone elses enjoyment of a black decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with whites.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

why should someone elses enjoyment of a black decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with whites.

why should someone elses enjoyment of a homosexual decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with a heterosexual.

Id like to point out every troll has utilised the "Why should x be allowed if it stops me enjoying Y" argument so far in this thread, and all it does it makes you sound like a ****ing call centre going through a script.

Provide a decent counter argument, not some pompous, childish, irrritating attempt at a BBC 2 comedy monologue.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

why should someone elses enjoyment of a homosexual decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with a heterosexual.

Id like to point out every troll has utilised the "Why should x be allowed if it stops me enjoying Y" argument so far in this thread, and all it does it makes you sound like a ****ing call centre going through a script.

Provide a decent counter argument, not some pompous, childish, irrritating attempt at a BBC 2 comedy monologue.

a decent counter argument to which argument?

my counter argument was (i confess) a decent counter to the argument I faced

EDIT: "why should someone elses enjoyment of a homosexual decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with a heterosexual."

there realy is no possibility of you being able to understand just why this actually is an argument (and a good one at that): is there.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

a decent counter argument to which argument?

my counter argument was (i confess) a decent counter to the argument I faced

EDIT: "why should someone elses enjoyment of a homosexual decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with a heterosexual."

there realy is no possibility of you being able to understand just why this actually is an argument (and a good one at that): is there.

the trend within the thread is , currently , to answer a question with another question. Inevitably, that question is posed in the form of the original question but with one main component altered.

Now I may well be a little out of touch with my BBC2 panel gameshows, and I do on occasion miss an episode of Im Sorry I Havent a Clue, but im pretty sure the format in which the entirety of GD is currently approaching this argument conforms to the above concept.

So all I would ask is that this debate, such as it is, and as enlightening and entertaining as it is, be continued in a format thats less predictable, more informative, and generally a bit more worth reading.

I gave my opinion on the smoking ban when I explained I was asthmatic. Beyond that im happy to let those with a better knowledge on the subject tell their stories and debate the rights and wrongs of the issue.

I just hate it when people troll for no other reason than they seem to think its funny.

Yes Nod, THIS MEANS YOU.

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Drunk people frequently unpleasant. However, they're not still sat on your chair in your bedroom being unpleasant the next morning.

Im not too sure of that like, I've woken up next to some horrors in my time...

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Chunderbunny

Im not too sure of that like, I've woken up next to some horrors in my time...

Thatll teach you to go to Stringfellows.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

1) we have a fully working definition of private members club. You may have noticed this:

a) because parliament voted on the distinction and they would not waste time voting on a non-existant concept,
b) private members clubs have been made exempt from other laws for the past 200 years: ie. licensing and sexual discrimination laws.

very well, although I'd like to see a precise definition if you could be so kind as to avail me of one.

2) Being unemployed and staying at home will dramaticly reduce your risk of cancer. A new law will not prevent that.

What on earth? First, unemployment and cancer do not, so far as I can see, have a negative correlation, and secondly, what point are you making or trying to defeat?

3) The issue of 'preserving' life has been blown out of all proportion:

a) because you will all still die.
b) because these measures will not protect you from cancer

Massive, massive strawman. If we were this cavalier about human life otherwise, I don't think we'd have many crimes left. "A fifteen-year-old broke into his granny's house, stabbed her through the chest eight or nine times, then stole her purse and fled? Oh, what the hell, she was getting on a bit anyway. And he'd probably use the money better."

Also, they don't PROTECT you from cancer, but they significantly reduce the risk of it - and, indeed, of all manner of smoke-related illnesses.

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

to put it succinctly: someone else drinking doesnt damage my health, someone else smoking does.


there is no such thing as passive drinking.

People don't get attacked by drunk people?

People don't get knocked over by drunk drivers?

and so on..... Succinct, but a little innaccurate

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Chunderbunny

People don't get attacked by drunk people?

People don't get knocked over by drunk drivers?

and so on..... Succinct, but a little innaccurate

both of these are criminal offences. in fact, being drunk and disorderly even without committing additional crime gets you a slap on the wrist.

[The General8]

Great news, now lets hope they outlaw smoking completly

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by The General8

Great news, now lets hope they outlaw smoking completly

There isn't a rolleyes big enough or rolly enough.

[Tactitus]

Sadly, my city is considering a similar ban.

Beyond the tyranny of the majority argument, it is curious that while so many nonsmokers say how much they hate smoke it doesn't seem to effect their patronage very much. I know my wife and I go out of our way to patronize non-smoking establishments, but we seem to be in a minority as there aren't too many places that cater to our preference (more than there used to be at least, so clearly some people are willing to vote with their dollars).

It's not like there are really any negative externalities. No one is forced to enter a smoking establishment. Whatever costs smokers are imposing on nonsmokers (comfort, health, etc), most nonsmokers appear willing to bear them. Likewise, bar owners are anxious to attract and keep customers (at least in my city) so there doesn't seem to be any reason why the market couldn't/wouldn't provide plenty of nonsmoking establishments if there were sufficient demand (and there are far more nonsmokers than smokers).

The relative scarcity of smoke-free establishments has led some people to claim the market isn't responsive. Yet how could this be? There's no real cost for an establishment to allow/disallow smoking beyond the numbers of customers it would attract or repel. If number_of_customers(nonsmoking) > number_of_customers(smoking) then it's a no-brainer, right? The fact that so few bars have found that equation to hold leads me to an unfortunate conclusion: although smokers are a minority, they are far more likely to take their business elsewhere (in order to smoke) than nonsmokers (in order to avoid smoke). Smoking rules because to the average smoker it's a major attraction whereas to the average nonsmoker it's only a minor annoyance.

It's odd to see people using the force of government to give them something that they--apparently--don't value strongly enough to demand from the market.

[MrL_JaKiri]

All private property should have the same base liberties attached to it, and anything the government does should only be of the form to increase those liberties (eg license to sell booze, which you're not allowed to do normally) and not decrease them.

We should not ban things just because we don't like them. We should not have the capability to ban things just because we don't like them.

If you still go out, of a night, to somewhere that allows smoking in full knowledge that it allows smoking, and that there are alternatives that do not, or can not then it's your fault that the market isn't realinging, because you don't care enough for any meaningful pressure to be exerted on the owners of the bar. This is like morbidly obese people pushing for legislation to ban all cakes because they just can't help themselves.

If you were serious about wanting non-smoking venues, you'd do what I do and either not go to places that allow smoking, or frequent non-smoking pubs. Your weakness isn't sufficient to justify anything.

[pig]

Im a smoker, but im for a partial ban. This being in pubs and restaurants etc...however not in private members buildings (ie casinos, snooker clubs, private clubs etc etc) Seeing as they are private, membership only etc I cant see what right the govmnt has to do legislate on this.

However lets for a minute look at the benefits. Fact is less people will smoke. I will probably quit, as the only real atmoshphere I enjoy smoking in is the pub/club place. I know many who are the same. Less people will take it up as well. At the end of the day it might reduce the amount of smokers.

Also in 30 years time we will probably be saying something like "Can you imagine smoking near food" and "Remember when people used to smoke those cancer sticks in a pub" etc

[MrL_JaKiri]

Restaurants already are (at least in Cambridge and Durham, don't know about elsewhere) significantly non-smoking (the market works!) so banning it seems unnecessary given that a significant amount of choice already exists.

[pig]

well all the college bars at uni are no smoking, all the restaurants/cafes at uni are no smoking, majority of canterbury restaurants are no smoking and theres a couple of no smoking pubs. I agree theres a market there but why does the gvmnt have to step on peoples liberties to enforce that market.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by pig

well all the college bars at uni are no smoking, all the restaurants/cafes at uni are no smoking, majority of canterbury restaurants are no smoking and theres a couple of no smoking pubs. I agree theres a market there but why does the gvmnt have to step on peoples liberties to enforce that market.

That's the point. They don't.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

I just hate it when people troll for no other reason than they seem to think its funny.

Dante's Internet Lesson #11283

A troll is not just someone who posts things that annoy you. You post things that annoy me in this thread, but I do not think you are trolling. I simply fear you have opinions which I find distasteful.

I'd say very little in this thread qualifies as trolling since, as far as I can tell, the people making the various points tend to believe what they are saying. They are not posting simply to illicit a response, but rather making an argument outlining their viewpoint, albeit in an extreme and possibly inflammatory manner.

You (and others) can of course call everyone you disagree with "trolls", but I fail to see how that's helpful.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well a better option, and not necessarily one which I wholly support, would be to have smoking licenses for pubs so as to create a much greater number of non-smoking pubs,

I would have supported that.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well a better option, and not necessarily one which I wholly support, would be to have smoking licenses for pubs so as to create a much greater number of non-smoking pubs, pubs which were more smoking orientated should be decorated like a Victorian Opium den. That would have been sweet.

i would also have supported that

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Oh, and there has been no causal link (or any link) proved between passive smoking and increased lung cancer rates.

seems fairly obvious that there would be a link. I mean it is not as if it is the filter that introduces all the carcinogens.

[Radical Edward]

I certainly don't agree on the private members club ban, but I do agree with the ban in pubs, clubs and restaurants. That being said, people in the UK already have it damn good compared to here in Germany, where it is rare even for restaurants to have a no smoking section, and for some bizarre retarded reason (east Germany at least) half of every train carriage is smoking, and half is non smoking, and there is no divider between the two, so even in the laughably named non smoking section, you still smell and inhale the stuff.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

seems fairly obvious that there would be a link. I mean it is not as if it is the filter that introduces all the carcinogens.

I retracted that later, I had been misinformed!

[Radical Edward]

ok, I missed that.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Ok so what if I make my pub a private members club and give out membership cards on the door to anyone who asks for one?

(this is a roundabout way of asking what the difference between a pub and private club is. There is no meaningful distinction here; private property is private property)

I thought there was some definition, like they are non profit and run by the patrons.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

why should someone elses enjoyment of a black decrease my enjoyment of sitting in a pub with whites.

black people aren't carcinogenic?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

It might not be a representative sample but the BBC poll is now up to 17,409 votes with 79.92% in favour of a total ban. That means for every person objecting, there are 9 in favour...

Sorry to be pedantic but if 9 people were in favour for every person objecting it would be 90% in favour. You mean for every person objecting there are 4 in favour.

[Obliterate]

I work in a bar which has a partial no-smoking policy, i.e. you're not allowed to smoke anywhere except for a special smoking area. I don't see any problem with something like that really - that way both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy a drink with or without the pungant stench of tobacco smoke.

While I do hate people smoking around me when I'm out for a drink, I think it should be up to the establishment to decide whether people can or cannot smoke on their premises. Having said that, I don't think I'll be complaining too much when this ban comes into force...

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

When you go to a pub you can pretty much expect smoke, if you dont want smoke then go to a non-smoking pub or drink in your house

When you go for a smoke in a pub you pretty much expect a £2500 fine, if you don't want a fine, then go to a smokers' pub* or smoke in your own house

*yes, I know they won't exist under the new rules, but then there aren't any non-smoking pubs around here at the moment either.

As to the alcohol thing, **** OFF.

Yes, I would like to see alcohol banned forever and ever amen, but hat doesn't mean I think it should be.

I'd like everyone in the whole country to be required by law to put 20p each in my back account every year, but there's no reason that such a law should be passed.

And it is perfectly possible to go out for one or two drinks, and not get drunk enough to behave in an anti-social manner and therefore not affecting other people. On the other hand, a single cigarette *does* affect other people. This is the difference.

My entire position on public smoking may be summed up with the following:

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Smokers should be made to smoke outside, but sometimes it rains so it would only be kindess to have some of roof over the area where they smoke, and some times it is cold and windy so it seems only fair to have some form of wall as well, you know on each side, and to save then trapsing in and out of this area, you could set up some sort of long table where you sell drinks in exchange for money. And here's the killer, you give the place a name which makes it very clear that if you happen to pass through this particular part of the "outside" then you will encounter smokers. Now its kind of like a house what (with the walls and a ceiling) and it would of course be public, but what to call such an establishment?

Anyway I think that would be a solution which would solve everyone's problems, because smokers would have somewhere to smoke and non-smokers wouldn't HAVE to go in there.

but you couldn't do this until the country abolishes slavery.

It is fundamentally unfair how many of our citizens (or 'bondsmen') are compelled (against their will) to work in the type of establishment you describe.

DOWN WITH SLAVERY I SAY!!!

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Dante's Internet Lesson #11283

A troll is not just someone who posts things that annoy you. You post things that annoy me in this thread, but I do not think you are trolling. I simply fear you have opinions which I find distasteful.

I'd say very little in this thread qualifies as trolling since, as far as I can tell, the people making the various points tend to believe what they are saying. They are not posting simply to illicit a response, but rather making an argument outlining their viewpoint, albeit in an extreme and possibly inflammatory manner.

You (and others) can of course call everyone you disagree with "trolls", but I fail to see how that's helpful.

Dante , youre absoloutely, wildly, missing the point of that post.

Nod does not, with any degree of passion, believe in a good portion of the statements which he makes. Theyre not made because he holds a belief that is opposite to that of others in this thread.

Nod makes statements which are the internet equivalent of Devils Advocate. To the best of my knowledge, Nod doesnt smoke (although im sure the pressures of living in London could have changed him in the intervening years and hes now on 40 Marlboro a day).

I have no issue with someone throwing a viewpoint they believe in. But when someone throws a viewpoint grenade into a thread, simply to get a reaction and to generate attention to his/herself, its fair to say i feel a great deal of disdain for that individual.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Dante , youre absoloutely, wildly, missing the point of that post.

Nod does not, with any degree of passion, believe in a good portion of the statements which he makes. Theyre not made because he holds a belief that is opposite to that of others in this thread.

Nod makes statements which are the internet equivalent of Devils Advocate. To the best of my knowledge, Nod doesnt smoke (although im sure the pressures of living in London could have changed him in the intervening years and hes now on 40 Marlboro a day).

I have no issue with someone throwing a viewpoint they believe in. But when someone throws a viewpoint grenade into a thread, simply to get a reaction and to generate attention to his/herself, its fair to say i feel a great deal of disdain for that individual.

You know ... If you really were trying to talk to and criticise nodrog ... could you please not quote my post while you are doing it?

It's just bloody confusing.

Oh and i assume that non-sensical rubbish about bbc2 was also because you were drunk?

[noah02]

On a lighter note I guess the toilets are going to be busy.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well thankfully the Government have passed a law forcing your friends to stand outside. Has that solved your problem? With my way everyone is a winner.

actually I've just been reading the bill and i'm not utterly convinced they have ...

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

To the best of my knowledge, Nod doesnt smoke (although im sure the pressures of living in London could have changed him in the intervening years and hes now on 40 Marlboro a day).

I don't smoke either. Argument doesn't have to rest on pure self interest, you know.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Oh and i assume that non-sensical rubbish about bbc2 was also because you were drunk?

Ive sat through some very bad BBC panel based "Comedy" show pilots, and the style of "debate" was almost identical to whats been said in this thread.

So no, being a staunch teetotaller, id say i was pretty sober. Although at 3am, probably a little tired as well.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well thankfully the Government have passed a law forcing your friends to stand outside. Has that solved your problem? With my way everyone is a winner.

I dont think they will go outside :/ picture this:

Nightclub
need a fag
Can wait
Someone annoys you
need a fag
can wait
getting annoyed by someone shoving you
need a fag
look outside Massive que
you walk out for a fag coz its just a fag
walk back
bouncer says que
bollocks.

Like I said toilets will be busy.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't smoke either. Argument doesn't have to rest on pure self interest, you know.

An Argument for Arguments sake is trolling. Thats a pretty fair definition.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Sadly, my city is considering a similar ban.

Beyond the tyranny of the majority argument, it is curious that while so many nonsmokers say how much they hate smoke it doesn't seem to effect their patronage very much. I know my wife and I go out of our way to patronize non-smoking establishments, but we seem to be in a minority as there aren't too many places that cater to our preference (more than there used to be at least, so clearly some people are willing to vote with their dollars).

It's not like there are really any negative externalities. No one is forced to enter a smoking establishment. Whatever costs smokers are imposing on nonsmokers (comfort, health, etc), most nonsmokers appear willing to bear them. Likewise, bar owners are anxious to attract and keep customers (at least in my city) so there doesn't seem to be any reason why the market couldn't/wouldn't provide plenty of nonsmoking establishments if there were sufficient demand (and there are far more nonsmokers than smokers).

The relative scarcity of smoke-free establishments has led some people to claim the market isn't responsive. Yet how could this be? There's no real cost for an establishment to allow/disallow smoking beyond the numbers of customers it would attract or repel. If number_of_customers(nonsmoking) > number_of_customers(smoking) then it's a no-brainer, right? The fact that so few bars have found that equation to hold leads me to an unfortunate conclusion: although smokers are a minority, they are far more likely to take their business elsewhere (in order to smoke) than nonsmokers (in order to avoid smoke). Smoking rules because to the average smoker it's a major attraction whereas to the average nonsmoker it's only a minor annoyance.

It's odd to see people using the force of government to give them something that they--apparently--don't value strongly enough to demand from the market.

Tbh, I have a feeling that once all the pubs have gone non-smoking, smokers will still go to them and just pop outside when they need their cigarette, rather than bothering to go to somewhere they are allowed to smoke (like their own house), in the same way that rather than getting in a car and driving to the nearest non-smoking establishment, non-smokers just put up with the smoke, chuck their clothes in the wash when they get home, and campaign for a blanket ban. Supporting the non-smoking establishments is a nice idea, but in reality precious few of them exist or are easy enough to get to that people don't just go home instead. When I go out with the jitsu crew, we sit outside rather than in the smoke, unless the weather is appalling. We've moved pubs twice recently in an attempt to find somewhere better, but when you don't get out of the sports centre till 10:30 at night, and most of us have work or lectures in the morning, it's not feasible to travel to some distant non-smoking pub to give them a few quids' worth of business.

And in pracitce, it's far easier to use the force of government than to organise the entire non-smoking world into tracking down non-smoking pubs. And at the end of the day, it's not like the smokers can't go in the pub anymore. They jsut have to put down their cigarettes for the duration of their visit.

Having said that, if the government had allowed for smoking areas that were actually properly sealed off from the rest of the pub, I woudn't be opposed to that. I wouldn't like it, since I think that it'd be in the interests of society as a whole if everyone just stopped smoking. But I woudn't oppose it, cos I wouldn't have to breathe it in order to visit the pub.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Ive sat through some very bad BBC panel based "Comedy" show pilots, and the style of "debate" was almost identical to whats been said in this thread.

thank goodness we have such a qualified and experienced debator to tell us when we go wrong.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

An Argument for Arguments sake is trolling. Thats a pretty fair definition.

how can you tell why someone is arguing?

Are you claiming magical powers? WoW really gone to your head i see

"lightning bolt! lightning bolt!"

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

how can you tell why someone is arguing?

Are you claiming magical powers? WoW really gone to your head i see

"lightning bolt! lightning bolt!"

Can we possibly get back on the subject, comments like the one above are (or so I thought) way beneath you Steven.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

An Argument for Arguments sake is trolling. Thats a pretty fair definition.

Ignoring that I disagree with that assesment, that's not what's happening here, and from my perspective you're the one trolling as you don't have any support for your proposition other than "You're not being utterly and totally selfish, nobody doesn't act like that "

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

And in pracitce, it's far easier to use the force of government than to organise the entire non-smoking world into tracking down non-smoking pubs. And at the end of the day, it's not like the smokers can't go in the pub anymore. They jsut have to put down their cigarettes for the duration of their visit.

it's always far easier to use the force of government to achieve any end.

It'd be far easier to stop all crime by using the force of government to put everyone in prison.

Over use of the force of government because it is 'easier' is how freedom and liberty die.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

thank goodness we have such a qualified and experienced debator to tell us when we go wrong.

Thank you for your personal opinion on my debating skills. Now let us return to the matter in hand after this short commercial break,

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Can we possibly get back on the subject, comments like the one above are (or so I thought) way beneath you Steven.

so your powers extend not only to telling people why they type their replies but also to telling people 'what they would usually type'?

Your delusions of grandure are getting out of hand.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Nod makes statements which are the internet equivalent of Devils Advocate. To the best of my knowledge, Nod doesnt smoke (although im sure the pressures of living in London could have changed him in the intervening years and hes now on 40 Marlboro a day).

This is completely irrelevant. I don't smoke either but I assure you I still care about this issue. I am also not gay, but if the government passed laws restricting homosexual practices, that would irk me.

Not everyone only cares about issues which directly affect them.

I'll say again, very slowly for you. Nod may be annoying you. He frequently annoys me in other threads with his views on the minimum wage, or the poor, or whatver else. This does not mean he is trolling. He simply has annoying viewpoints sometimes.

You must have an incredibly narrow view point to believe that people are simply "arguing for arguments sake" - especially when there views in this thread are roughly in line with the viewpoints they've expressed for at least the last five years or so.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Ignoring that I disagree with that assesment, that's not what's happening here, and from my perspective you're the one trolling as you don't have any support for your proposition other than "You're not being utterly and totally selfish, nobody doesn't act like that "

My viewpoint is simple, ill spell it out since what youve put before indicates you dont understand it,

"Some individuals are posting in this thread with no interest in the subject matter. Their posts are designed to get a reaction and belittle others."

There. Clear as day.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

so your powers extend not only to telling people why they type their replies but also to telling people 'what they would usually type'?

Your delusions of grandure are getting out of hand.

One person here is an unemployed 31yr old typing on a keyboard in his spare bedroom inbetween researching his next job.

One person here is a "Top lawyer" who clearly has more time on this board to tell us how wonderful he is and how unintelligent the masses are than he appears to have dealing with his clients.

Delusions of grandeur? Not in this lifetime.