The Smoking Ban - An Unmitigated Disaster.

Topical debate
User avatar
P_Trembath
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:55 pm

Post by P_Trembath » Mon May 04, 2009 3:02 pm


zennorman said:
............is if anyone wants to go for a drink or a meal they have a right not to have cigarette smoke blow over or around them.........



And if there were separate smoking and non-smoking establishments, you could chose, and all rights would be satisfied. Can anyone tell me how this would be wrong?

Or do you wish to prove correct what I wrote before:-

P_Trembath said:
I would have more respect for your argument if you were arguing for a total ban of tobacco and tobacco products, that at least would be honest, and of benefit to the health of the populous. To defend the present legislation is a demonstration of [size=large]selfishness[/size], you are not concerned about my, as a smokers, health, your concerns are not solely about your health. The defenders of this current legislation seem to be more concerned about what they may be missing out on by not going into establishments where smoking is allowed "why should I have to run the risk/why should I come home stinking of smoke, when I go out for a drink/meal/etc" you would not be missing out on anything, unless you believe that smokers make better pubs, if the owners of such establishments were allowed to chose to be "smoking" or "non-smoking", there would, according to figures provided on this thread earlier, be 5 times more non-smoking establishments than smoking ones.



Do you have a valid argument against separate establishments?
Everyone, Cornish or otherwise, has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small; no one is too old or too young to do something.

Masterclass
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:18 am

Post by Masterclass » Mon May 04, 2009 5:59 pm

Shiner, in 1850, life expectancy was 39 years, so you "no cancer from herbal tobacco" claim doesn't really hold much water.

Zennorman, I didn't get an abusive email. :(



Shiner
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:26 am

Post by Shiner » Mon May 04, 2009 7:05 pm

I said..

American indians never suffered from lung cancer because they smoked natural organic tobbaco...



Masterclass said..

Shiner, in 1850, life expectancy was 39 years, so you "no cancer from herbal tobacco" claim doesn't really hold much water.



You seem to have a malfunctioning brain. Please explain how your mind worked out that reply from my statement.

Should you actually be allowed to go anywhere near the flu virus with that sort of logic floating round inside your head?

User avatar
Allister
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:10 am
Contact:

Post by Allister » Mon May 04, 2009 8:57 pm

Shaz, that's nice and bold, thanks...

Since no one has presented a valid reason to your above question should we allow a smoking apartheid across the board?

Separate buses, one for smokers and no smokers, cinemas, restaurants, clubs, shops etc etc.?


User avatar
GrahamHart
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:26 pm

Post by GrahamHart » Mon May 04, 2009 9:46 pm


Zennorman, I didn't get an abusive email.

Neither did zennorman :-O The man's obviously a cigarette short of a full pack :-(

When I find a few boring moments MC, hopefully later tonight. I'll respond to your "credible data". :-D :-D :-D

I loved this one though about Chinese Kitchens :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D


User avatar
P_Trembath
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:55 pm

Post by P_Trembath » Tue May 05, 2009 1:43 am


Allister said:
Shaz, that's nice and bold, thanks...



It obviously pays to shout. ;-)


Allister said:
Since no one has presented a valid reason to your above question should we allow a smoking apartheid across the board?



As I understand "apartheid", it is segregation based on compulsion, based on racial/ethnic difference, we are talking about the right to chose here, so unless you are able to chose the colour of your skin.........

On the other hand, perhaps your "apartheid" analogy is not that far from the situation now, in that smokers are compelled to stand around outside and watch the non-smokers having fun inside.


Allister said:
Separate buses one for smokers and no smokers.......



A bit awkward, and probably logistically impracticable, but if you are willing to pay the increased fares that such a system would necessarily involve, why not. But on trains, one smoking carriage right at the end, where's the problem?


Allister said:
.....cinemas.....



Yep, your getting the idea now.


Allister said:
.....restaurants.......



If the owner wants to, and employs only smokers who are happy to work in such an establishment, yes what a good idea.


Allister said:
.....clubs........



As above, why not?


Allister said:
.......shops........



Again, if the owner, and the employees, all wish to do so, why not. However, do you think it would stay open for long? Even a smoker would not wish to buy his liver and bacon from a butcher who was dropping the ash from his JPS all over the counter.


Allister said:
......etc etc.?



Etc etc, that depends on what the "etc" is, we are talking about freedom of choice. There are places where there is no alternative, and they should be smoke free, so that all can use them. It is those places, and people, who wish to provide a service for smokers to enjoy in their leisure time, who are, at the moment, on the wrong side of the current smoking apartheid.
Everyone, Cornish or otherwise, has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small; no one is too old or too young to do something.

User avatar
Allister
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:10 am
Contact:

Post by Allister » Tue May 05, 2009 2:13 am


On the other hand, perhaps your "apartheid" analogy is not that far from the situation now, in that smokers are compelled to stand around outside and watch the non-smokers having fun inside.



You're not compelled, you're addicted. Well, I am.

And instead of standing around outside on your own in the cold watching everyone having fun inside, put the cigarette out and go inside. Can't you smoke between pubs, or nip out once or twice an evening?

Are we so addicted to a pointless consumer product that we must have self imposed segregation?

Come on Shiner, get with me on this one 8-)


But on trains, one smoking carriage right at the end, where's the problem?



Can't you just not smoke for a couple hours, where's the problem?

Shall we have a nudist carriage too, and a junkie carriage?



Yep, your getting the idea now.



I'm really not :-P


The smoking ban, hopefully, wont be lifted and in 10 years time it'll be as normalised to the younger generation as non-smoking cinemas are to me.



Masterclass
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:18 am

Post by Masterclass » Tue May 05, 2009 6:47 am


Shiner said:
I said..

American indians never suffered from lung cancer because they smoked natural organic tobbaco...



Masterclass said..

Shiner, in 1850, life expectancy was 39 years, so you "no cancer from herbal tobacco" claim doesn't really hold much water.



You seem to have a malfunctioning brain. Please explain how your mind worked out that reply from my statement.

Should you actually be allowed to go anywhere near the flu virus with that sort of logic floating round inside your head?



OK, Lung cancer typically does not show itself until later life. With a life expectancy only into early middle age, lung cancer won't be spotted as the person will not survive long enough for it to develop.

And I typed "herbal tobacco" instead of "organic tobacco", but the point still stands.

Masterclass
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:18 am

Post by Masterclass » Tue May 05, 2009 6:49 am


Shaz said:
Paddy perhaps they can't read it...

Lets try this...

[size=huge]No-one has yet come up with a valid reason as to why an establishment, owned by a smoker, that is exclusively staffed by smokers, and is run to provide a recreational facility for smokers, should be illegal.[/size]



I feel the same way about crack dens.

Zennorman
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:31 pm

Post by Zennorman » Tue May 05, 2009 9:16 am

Separate smoking establishments would not work in this crazy world. There may not be enough custom to make them economically viable. In this world of 'job seekers' could non smokers object and keep their benefit if they refused a job in a smokers pub. I am not against such establishments in those circumstances but people who use them would have no right to NHS treatment for cancer induced illness.

I do think that betting shops should allow smoking - perhaps as a deterrent to the idiots that bet.

And BBQs?! Thanks for the biggest laugh of the year. :lol:

Shiner
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:26 am

Post by Shiner » Tue May 05, 2009 9:46 am


Are we so addicted to a pointless consumer product that we must have self imposed segregation?

Come on Shiner, get with me on this one



OK, legalise cannabis and open Dutch style smoking cafes. That way you'll kill two birds with one stone(r). 8-)



OK, Lung cancer typically does not show itself until later life. With a life expectancy only into early middle age, lung cancer won't be spotted as the person will not survive long enough for it to develop.



But you didn't state whether your life expectancy figures applied to American Indians who smoke or people living in the inner city slums of London infested with rats and open sewers in the streets.


Can't you just not smoke for a couple hours, where's the problem?



Pubs should sell nicotine chewing gum. When I gave up smoking I found myself 'chain-chewing' after a couple of pints. Good hit though. 8-)

Shiner
Posts: 2015
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:26 am

Post by Shiner » Tue May 05, 2009 10:04 am


And BBQs?! Thanks for the biggest laugh of the year.



Again, you've been brainwashed into thinking tobacco smoke is the breath of the devil but bonfires and BBQs only give off safe happy smoke.

BBQs not only give off smoke but also add nasty carcinogens to the food burnt on them and the food BBQ'd is usually of an unhealthy type as well, so you breath the carcinogenic smoke AND eat the carcinogenic food, most often of a saturated fat nature that raises the risk of heart disease.

Its the result of propaganda that leads to someone throwing a tantrum when a smoker turns up at the pub garden BBQ as you're stuffing your face with saturated fatty acids with added carcinogenic burnt bits while breathing in a your 'safe' BBQ smoke.

Smoke is smoke in a rational world. Although you do you have the added nasties in tobacco smoke that the tobacco industry kindly adds to commercial tobaccos without being obliged to inform you of what they are adding.

I'd say someone who smokes up to 10 fags a day of tobaccos like American Spirit or Pueblo would live a healthier life and probably a longer one, than the non-smoker who lives off a diet of the types of food you find on a typical BBQ.

But the Government are not likely to tell you that, instead they'd rather put photos of dead people on fag packets instead.

Why don't they put photos of road crash victims on petrol pumps?

Why don't they show photos of dead heart attack victims in butcher shop windows or on the bottom of packs of clotted cream?

Because they're a small bunch of other people with a plan and that's not on their agenda at the moment - ridding society of free thinking smokers and tokers is, unfortunately.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests