Scottish smoking ban

[Job]

Yes , a non smoker myself, but smoking isn't really dangerous as a single act, smoking for 30-40 years is what gets you.

Most smokers don't get lung cancer or any other smoking related diseases.
In fact there rates of these diseases isn't as high as you would automatically think.

I would say they all have pretty gunged up lungs, but if you stop they recover very quickly.

Though you will never clear your arteries, smoking incresases the sticking of fat to the walls and it never recovers.

 

[Cozak]

Actually thats bollocks.
Survey after survey has shown smokers a FAR more productive if given recognised smoke breaks. They have a work load they need to complete before they go for a smoke so they go faster so they can get their smoke quicker.
Makes you non smokers look like a load of tired lazy gits 2bh.

I would also like to point out that number of deaths from cancer is now at an all time high yet the number of smokers is at an all time low.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of people dying from cancer are due to cancers which are not caused by tobacco smoking.

So ... all in all... when you self righteous gits have your way and smoking is banned in its entirety (which is the way its heading) .. what you gonna blame all the cancers on next?
Will you blame cars? Which in a 3 mile journey will produce more hydrocarbons and carcinogens than an average smoker will in a lifetime? (lets not even mention diesels shall we?).
Will you blame all the other sources of carcinogens within your average daily exsposure like paint (yup the stuff you put on your house walls) or deodorants (yup the stuff you spray onto your body) or any of the other million odd chemicals you meet in a day.
Anyone out there wearing leather boots for example?
Do you eat organic food ? Because yes ..... organic food contains carcinogens.
Where as chemical manufacturers have to jump through hoops to prove their product is safe an organic farmer can spray what he likes on crops so long as its naturally occuring. Hell he could spray arsnic on his plants and still keep his "organic" food label. How much copper sulphate you wanna eat in a day? Just buy organic.
My point is ... smoking kills MINIMAL levels of the population. The vast plethora of other chemicals and compounds you come into contact in a day are far more dangerous than secondary inhalation.
Did I mention Chernobyl?

From my personal experince smokers at my work are going for cigarette breaks every 30-40mins and spending 10mins smoking, and when they are at work they are not working any harder than a non-smoker. So the non-smoker has a extra 10mins of work every hour on top of the smoker.

The number of deaths from cancer at an all time high and number of smokers at an all time low, probably due to a lot of smokers realising how stupid smoking is and quitting. cancer can sometimes take a long time to make itself known.

Lots of people dying from cancers not smoking related, true but if you ban smoking then there will be a lot less people dying of cancer fullstop. I couldnt give a shit if smokers want to kill themselves as long as they do it away from people who do not want to breathe in smoke, and this ban (albeit a bit harsh as i have said before in this thread: a law that makes sure that all public places must have a segregated smoking room with excellent ventilation, and people checking that all rules and regulations are very well followed, is enough) will ensure that people who do not wish to breathe in your second-hand smoke will not have to.

 

[Keres]

I hate this argument, always gets people wound up, but i have a simple way of dealing with the anti ciggie brigade; If you don't like my smoke then fuck off, i should charge you for breathing it in anyway.

So if a bar is smokey, don't go in!!!! ffs
go to another one, we don't want you there whinging about our cigs anyway.

Its like these people that watch a tv program about sex or violence and complain after its finished that it was disgusting!!!! FFs Change channel if you dont like it.

Thought I was quote this to say my view. non smoker for the record.

What gives you the right to have your way just because someone else doesn't want to breathe in the same filth that you are breathing in. As you said If you don't like my smoke then fuck off, In options when I can fuck off I would but that is kinda like saying that smokers have more rights than non smokers. Why should non smokers have to fuck off because some person got addictive to a pointless, expensive and deadly addiction decides to spread his smoke around other people.

Then you say if you go to smokey bar, don't go in. Once again the point is there, you are saying you have more rights than non smokers. What if I was there first with my m8s and you come in and start smoking, you force me to leave so you can have your own desires. This reminds me of an advert about racism. If a black person was sitting on a seat on a bus and a white person came on the bus and had no seat, then black people had to give up their seat for that person. You force someone else who is innocent and equal to you to move just because you can have your selfish need.

There is nothing cool about smoking, even if you think there is. My dad when we was in his teens smoked and he thought it was cool, now in his 40s he has become a heavy smoker and has the smokers cough. It sounds like he is coughing his guts up and its one of the most sickening sounds I have heard in my life. He has tried to quit but it has become too much of an addiction and I can tell that it will be the thing that will end his life. I want to treasure my life and live it to the fulliest, not to have it cut short because of someones addiction.

And for the TV programs quote, Yes you change the channel if you don't like the program but watching TV doesn't kill you (just makes you lose brain cells and make ya tits smaller )

 

[Job]

I've invented a gas that I can spray in a smoky pub, it makes cigarettes 1 million times more lethal to the smoker.

I like spraying this gas, it calms me down, sort of an addiction really, it's not illegal as yet, but no doubt some pansy human rights activist will complain and I will be banned from spraying it.

FFS if smokers don't want to be poisened, can't they just go to a bar where i'm not spraying this gas?

 

[Iceforge]

Your Just makimg up Numbers and rounding other numbers to Suit your equations while also judging that a Pub always have 100 ppl in it and they always spend 20 Quid. Im sorry but errr I know it's an example but its not even a remotely Possible Example also the Government arent exactly going to work out statistics of how many people frequent every pub in England while also working out how much each person who probably doesnt go ever nite spends and then work out some Rate at which to pay a non-smoking pub for becoming Just that.

It's unfeasible and Uneconomic in relation to Cost of Setting up, Researching, Maintaining and implementing. A Blanket Ban Is the most effective and Fair, If a pub wishes to become a Smoking Classed pub they should have to get a licence or basically have the Ban Removed from the premises. All your Doing is adding another Job onto the Health and Safety inspector or possibly Creating a new inspector based on Demand / Useage of Time, payed for by Tax on the Substance in question anyway .

To state examples I need to make up variables, I could (if I could be arsed) make a grand example of city with 50 pubs with 50 different amouths of customers and so on and so forth.

What you miss is the fact that if you give a benifith to non-smoker-pubs, some will do it and by the nature of competition, the pubs would try and balance the number of smoker and non-smoker pubs to make the most profit themselves, if a non-smoker pub is needed in the area, a non-smoker pub will probarly (if the system is made right) be the most benificial one.

And unless you go for an outright ban, then you will need inspectors, no matter which solution and they have probarly already added inspectors to this complete ban as that is usually how the wheel spins, right?

 

[Vindicator]

To state examples I need to make up variables, I could (if I could be arsed) make a grand example of city with 50 pubs with 50 different amouths of customers and so on and so forth.

What you miss is the fact that if you give a benifith to non-smoker-pubs, some will do it and by the nature of competition, the pubs would try and balance the number of smoker and non-smoker pubs to make the most profit themselves, if a non-smoker pub is needed in the area, a non-smoker pub will probarly (if the system is made right) be the most benificial one.

And unless you go for an outright ban, then you will need inspectors, no matter which solution and they have probarly already added inspectors to this complete ban as that is usually how the wheel spins, right?

Oh I got your point, asides from the examples you give. What you seemed to have missed is that it would be "It's unfeasible and Uneconomic in relation to Cost of Setting up, Researching, Maintaining and implementing" as I said in my last post. It isnt something you could simply add to another part of the a government section. If you had a Ban on the basis of health and safety, which is exactly why they implemented the ban, then it the new license giving or Ban removing would fall upon that Section of the Goverment but it also doesnt require all the statistical and probability working out estimated cost's / loss's from pubs. Anyway you know the publicans would get cute like Taxi men who declear a set amount they earn in a year, a rediculously low number, as the amount all taxi drives make. Publicans would be quick to see that and then all of a sudden all the pubs would be going non-smoking to make a quick buck as is lets tax, meaning more money for less work. Or less customers basically while also giving them a nice Tax break and letting the goverment think they are doing them a favour.

 

[Iceforge]

Oh I got your point, asides from the examples you give. What you seemed to have missed is that it would be "It's unfeasible and Uneconomic in relation to Cost of Setting up, Researching, Maintaining and implementing" as I said in my last post. It isnt something you could simply add to another part of the a government section. If you had a Ban on the basis of health and safety, which is exactly why they implemented the ban, then it the new license giving or Ban removing would fall upon that Section of the Goverment but it also doesnt require all the statistical and probability working out estimated cost's / loss's from pubs. Anyway you know the publicans would get cute like Taxi men who declear a set amount they earn in a year, a rediculously low number, as the amount all taxi drives make. Publicans would be quick to see that and then all of a sudden all the pubs would be going non-smoking to make a quick buck as is lets tax, meaning more money for less work. Or less customers basically while also giving them a nice Tax break and letting the goverment think they are doing them a favour.

True true, hard to implemt such a system as I suggested, but as said, it is the best not-complete-ban solution to the problems people seem to be talking about in the thread that I can come up with, smokers and non-smokers in this thread have gone to their edges, being really rude towards each other "you fuck off! my smoke, you can just go if you dont like it!" "Lolzor, go outside and smoke you unhealthy bastard smoker!" and so and and so forth, that will surdenly never be the solution to any problem.

Anyway, the ban is already there anyway, just speaking of some of the ideas I would have considered instead of outright ban... place for us all, I would hope.

 

[Gamah]

Sigh. Muppet.

Sigh. Muppet.

 

[pixieblue]

Smokin Cigarettes should be banned in Public places, Its all about thinking of others, I do smoke and I would'nt mind stepping outside for a few mins to have a smoke (Even If I do Freeze my tits off).

One point of this matter tho:
About 2 yrs back I read that more Non-Smokers are getting Lung Cancer than 20-40 aday Smokers, So.. What Is causing Lung Cancer? Scientist's and Doctors say that smoking causes Cancer...Then why did more non-Smokers get the terrible desease. (Dont know the statistics now tho)


But Anyway ... I am all for the Smoking Ban.
My Reason: Just thinking of others.

:wub:

 

[Litmus]

Im not sure if anyone else has already posted this ( cba reading thru +5 pages). But smokeing will still be allowed in pubs in the UK, as long as they dont serve food in the same venue. ( as far as i understand it from reading the newspaper yesterday.)

So my prediction is that most will stop servering food as its realy not that profitable compared to how much revenue they would lose from smokers who would drink the the pub etc. So the problem will still be there... your local pub will still have alot of smokers.

I am a smoker an tbh im not that fussed that i would have to go outside for a quick fag if a ban was impossed, but i am against being told what i AM going to do. I am for good extractions fans as i think it would make people more happy all round.