Spose you could attribute it to driving fast: fun but potentially lethal. I'd suggest the majority that smoke are addicted and those that social smoke have to be the lamest people on the planet. Those who enjoy the nicotine are generally addicted to it. I mean, come on though. You can't have a good time with friends without feeling so incredibly insecure about the situation and acceptance within the group, that you need to "conform to the norm" and smoke (and drink?). I've met people who hate drinking beer, yet do it to be apart of the group. It's a Catcher in the Rye all over again. If you affect other people, like those who work in a bar, or those who sing at gigs then it should be smoking free. Sure, let those smoke who want to and let the owner decide if they want their place to be filled with nicotine and tar smears up the walls but segregate them entirely from those who don't want to suffer from the second hand. I couldnt care less how other people choose to kill themselves, but I don't want to be envolved with it.
porbably a rise in tax, or a rise in the cost of alcohol. i wish there was no such thing as alcohol tax, and especially since they changed it from tax by volume to tax by percentage of alcohol ¬_¬ i feel like a poor ******* when i come out of wine cellar with my absinthe
It would help explain his fascist views towards smoking as it is likely that he has subconsciously associated bad feelings with smoke. I was going to answer your post but I read this line, so there's no point. If you dnn't understand then you probably never will. I think it is a disgrace that peoples' liberties are being removed like this. specofdust gets it spot on, in my opinion:
I loath the fascist views in here, not to mentioned poor motivations and excusses for supporting the ban. Un ****ing (pardon my French) believable. Will follow this thread with great interest, just to se what them tossers will come up with next! the none smoker We don't pardon swearing, read the Rules (duly noted, thank you)
Probably not. But tell me, do you REALLY need to change who you are from whatever else you are, in every other aspect of your life, because you want to fit in with your "friends"? Could these people really resist the temptation to smoke, socially, if they so desired? Will they accept you for being less of a person? Conformity breeds comfort, I understand that but it doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for them to a certain extent. I assume by the reaction that you're a social smoker? Does my "leeter than thou" attitude grate you? Am I forfilling an online persona that's different to who I am, and therefore, being such a phony also? Or is winding people up without retribution or care a part of my actual personality?? I love how the smokers believe it's their god given right to do it where-ever they want and two shits to everyone else, despite the cancer they cause from passing it on. And how non-smokers think that it's some sort of infection and healthier makes them better people in every other aspect. Because that's how the smoking world was, and a non-smokers world is being affected by it. Noone can put themselves in each others shoes because they are so commited to their way of life and self belief that they are right and everyone else is at fault. It's interesting, facists, realists or self-rightious up their own arse-ists? Why don't people take snuff anymore? Why not drink and drive? Or just drive fast? Is the demise of smoking causing a problem for a drug-loving human society or a soon to be extinct, socially disgusting passtime. It's part capitalism, part social desire, part "for the children" political belief that they are saving the world and people from themselves and others.
The totally over-the-top and frankly stupid opinions by anti-smokers these days amazes me. Smoking is a practice that never raised an eyebrow a few years ago, it wasn't seen as anti-social at all, watch any old movie. Unlike many other practices that may damage bystanders, like speeding or using your phone in the car, it's not illegal to buy tobacco. And yet people now spit with rage if someone lights up. Pubs and clubs are no longer allowed to separate smokers and non-smokers - now blanket legislation bans smoking altogether. Mob-driven hysteria, not market forces.
But, society is run on mob-driven hysteria. After-all, isn't ever chav a criminal, every asian a terrorist and paedophiles are on every corner waiting for your children to go out and play?
Yup, thankfully for them and annoyingly for us though, the mob no longer have to explain themsevles. They just demonstrate a bit of hatred and that's it. Humanity really deserves to be wiped out Agreed.
Society is most often supported and enforced by the non intellectual mob, and in turn run by a daft minority!
I'm a 10-a-day smoker. I enjoy it and I don't want to stop. I can stop whenever I want - I've stopped for a month on several occasions with no problems - just to see that I could. None of my friends smoke and nobody pressures me into smoking - most people I know generally try to talk me into quitting. I tried it myself first out of curiosity and enjoyed my first one and have enjoyed it since I consciously decided to retire my athletics interests and pursue a hobby in smoking. Pub owners will realise that there's profit to be made by running smoke-free bars and it will all balance out so that there's somewhere for everyone. It's not right that I should be forced not to smoke with a drink because of what a minority want. It's ridiculous and will severely damage the economy, too.
What, precisely, is fascist and poorly motivated about protecting people from the harm caused from second hand smoke? Why should non-smokers, who want to go out for a social gathering, be forced to put up with an unhealthy and disgusting habbit that can cause them serious harm? People who disagree with the ban seem to state that it's within their own rights to smoke where they want. So is it your choice to knowingly and consciously harm others through your own doing? People saying "oh we should ban cars and alcohol too, because its just as dangerous to other members of society".. This is bloody ridiculous. For a start, people who drink and become violent, are under the influence, and therefore are not all together conscious that what theyre doing is wrong and unjustified. And bad drivers don't harm people through fault of their own, they were passed and given a liscence when perhaps they shouldn't have been by a less than standardised instructor. There's nothing stopping a smoker from enjoying their habbit in their own homes. This way, they are not harming anyone but themselves, and you can still go out and drink, you just have to give up the odd cigarette to do so. I am a smoker of sorts, i enjoy a cigar every now and then, but i take into consideration the feelings of others and do it in either my own presence, or i ask if its ok with the people around me to do so. Fact: Second hand smoke cuases serious harm and can kill. Apparent fact: Smokers don't give a toss.
You're not though, that's the point. No-one forces you to go into a bar and smoke or breath other peoples smoke. The option is open for you to go to a non-smoking place with your social gathering. What is happening here is the closing off of one option in order to fullfill the lesser desire of there being no smoking in any public place. Right now you can choose to go to a smoking place or a non-smoking place, closing off one option is authoritarian at least and I personally think easily qualifies for the term facist. I'm sorry, but what? You're saying that because they're drunk it's ok? If that's the case, I think I'll tool up on a few crates of beer and then go kill all the people I don't like, it'll be ok, I'll be drunk so it won't be my fault. FFS people, grow some personal responsability. Your arguements here are getting pathetic overdosedelusion, putting drink drving down to poor instructors? I mean seriously now.... What's your point though? We've already assessed that cars are far bigger killers then ciggerettes second hand smoke is. Given that not everyone uses cars, should people be allowed to force cars of city streets because it is their right to walk around and not have to inhale harmfull fumes from a car? Answer that, really, answer that. Because frankly it's exactly the situation that's going on with smoking, it's just smoking has been made unpopular by the powers that be and lot's of people have decided it's fun to shout at anyone who dares to inhale hot plant fumes for fun. In life, we come into contact with things that are bad for us constantly. Most people partake in one or more things that harm others in a small way, so instead of banning everything that can cause the least little harm, we implicitly agree that - yes, ok, some things are going to harm us that other people do, and some things we do are going to harm other people. No-one has no footprint of any sort. This is just part of life, you have to accept that outside your own four walls things are going to interact with you, and that is often going to be a negative interaction.
ok, so, name one? have you EVER, seen a non smoking pub? have you EVER seen a non-smoking club? in fact, have you EVER seen somewhere you can sit down with a pint where smoking ISN'T allowed? If so then it must be a bloody act of God For a start i never said drunk drivers, i said bad drivers, and this IS a fault with the both instructor for passing them, and themselves for being, well, a bad driver. Now, the alcohol thing you've just taken completely over the top. If you tank up on booze, most of the control you have on what you do goes out the window, and this includes your state of mentality. How often do we hear about people who do things they regret the rest of their life because they were drunk. Lesson = take a round of responsibilty with your beer. I doubt youd even be able to get drunk anough to want to kill everyone, and at that point, you wouldn't even be able to hold a gun. And if you do, then you're ****ed up in the head to start with and sobriety can't do anything for you're severely screwed up brain. Personally, to answer the question, i feel that cars should be either removed from society, or that we find a less damaging fuel source to our environment. But then.. i actually care about the fact we've ****ed up the planet so much that in a few thousand years, man will be living under a cloud of dust so thick we'd come home looking like a coal miner, if we havent drowned under billions of tonnes of water. But i take it you're a nihilist with self preservation and happiness in mind.. Yes, but why we should suffer these interactions from some people who clearly don't care that what theyre doing is bad for the health of people around them? It's not as though they've been banned. They've been moderated. I think the right to a perfect health far outways the right to right to smoke wherever you see fit.
Well, the only one I can think of is Wetherspoons, but that's beside the point. If there were enough of a real desire for non-smoking bars, pubs and clubs they'd exist in full. Many resteraunts have had a no-smoking or smoking only in a small area policy for years. If there's a desire in a capitalism then that desire is catered to. Fact is, if there aren't many no smoking bars, it isn't that succesfull a business model. If that's the case then there's more desire for smoking bars then non-smoking by a very large margin. So you're fine with banning all cars and motorvehicles, as well as most trains and all planes by say, 2008? You're honestly fine with that? If so, you must be prepared to live in a very different world, and for sure most people wouldn't be prepared to live in that world, myself included. Point is, the vast majority of anti-smokers who're for this impending ban would be strongly against any full ban on motor vehicles, planes and trains. It's a double standard, it's poorly thought out, and it's frankly stupid. My point was that we all do things that harm other people and for the most part we don't care, often don't even stop to think. That's life, you improve it for some people, you make it marginally worse for a fair few. You're not exempt from that just because you do not smoke. We all harm each other, smokers are merely being picked on because they are an easy target. There is no balance, equality(in relation to other equally or more harmfull things) or logic in this forthcoming ban, and unfortunately no-one who proposes it seems to be able or willing to provide any decent reasons why in a free capitalist society we should endure it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but as a smoker, having had the ban here in Scotland for coming on a year now, it hasn't bothered me at all. In fact I would go so far as to say I actually preffer being in a pub without the smoke, and if I feel like a puff I'll pop outside for a few minutes. The one big difference I have noticed is when I wake up the morning after a night out drinking I don't feel like crap, this being due to the fact I've only smoked 2 or 3 ciggies the night before compared to a normal 20 on a night out.
The thing which I don't like about smoking is that at work we do a large amount of group projects and when 25% of the time people aren't there (taking a 15min smoking break every hour) it really slows work down.
I would be happy with a ban on all transport if it meant that mankind and wildlife didn't suffer the consequences yes. I know it would be a completely different world, and that is why it would never, EVER happen. But if a vote were called for such a thing, i would happily vote yes. I only ever use a car or public transport when its vital and i cannot get there by foot. But i'm sure that once the government starts to invest more in the scientists and technology companies to make transport far less damaging to health and the environment, we will start to see a welcome change take effect by a LOT of people. Given the choice people (i put a little faith in humanity here) would choose something that damages the world a lot less. Unfortunately, governments seem to be spending more on more money to get their hands on Oil, rather than finding an alternative. Now, back on topic. Im sure that alot of people do things that harm other beings. In fact i'd comfortably say 99% of the popultaion happily go about doing things that destroy the health of others around them. Heck i add to the damage when i smoke a cigar and drink as much as i do, so im not gonna rule myself out either. Smokers are not being picked on, they're being moderated so that they can smoke without the unnecessary damage to other people. It may seem to some like theyre being singled out and told "no, you cannot do this. you must conform to our way of life" but they really arn't, the government is just trying to make a better job of looking out for people who don't smoke. Though, i will agree to as much as that they are executing a far too heavy restriction on smokers. I believe that they should have tried to ban smoking in some pubs and left others free to choose according to the owner. This way there would be somewhere for everybody, but this would have been much harder too accomplish. Lets just say we agree to disagree. There's nothing either one of us cfould say that would convince the other of their own way of thinking. I think the ban should be put into place, though i think it was a little too harsh with regard to how strict it is
No need to be confused, it all comes down to how you go about in order to obtain a non smoking environment. It has nothing to do with convincing you, or anyone else. The dispute mainly revolves around how the issue has been approached.
Yep, so true. The only time I even smoke is when I go out and have a few, or several. I dont care either way but if there was a ban I wouldnt mind much. Im always amazed by the people who are huddled together in sub-zero temperatures smoking, I dont think that those people would quit anyway.
