Smoking to be banned in Norway.

[. - .... .- -. ....]

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2528127.stm)

This can only be a good thing :) - but I doubt many other countries will follow suit unfortunately. I'm sick of stinking of smoke every time I go to the pub. If people want to smoke they should be allowed to do so, but only if it doesn't affect others.

[Atmo]

Those sorts of laws have been in place for a while here in aus, and even though im a smoker, its a good thing IMO.

[dirkdeftly]

:D lmfao @ the song...but what does it have to do with smoking?

[zootm]

the definitive zootVerdict:

:):up:

[hestermofet]

This is absolutely disgusting. And I can see this type of legislation coming into effect in Canada within the next 5 years. Thank God I'll be out of this hellhole by then.

[Windude]

Smokers take in mind altering chemicals, note that this isn't ganja or any other form of illegal drug (considered illegal in the UK) used in smoking.
These chemicals are put into cigarettes to make you buy more cigarettes and other produce i.e. soap, shampoo, toothpaste etc (these contail chemicals too),

these chemicals alter the way you think and act, it is a test by the companies, they also help keep cancer in fashion. cancer research pays for them

[eleet-2k2]

Originally posted by Atmo
Those sorts of laws have been in place for a while here in aus, and even though im a smoker, its a good thing IMO. Ya, anti-smoking laws are in place here in Toronto for all public areas. I'm glad it's been banned. :)

[zootm]

Originally posted by hestermofet
This is absolutely disgusting. And I can see this type of legislation coming into effect in Canada within the next 5 years. Thank God I'll be out of this hellhole by then.
why? you can still kill yourself in the comfort of your own home... why is banning it in public places bad?

[hestermofet]

It's indicative of a larger trend... a political culture where it's ok to take away guns, the right to discipline your kids, and so forth. A populace of happy, fat and stupid people. Next, we'll have some stupid law forbidding smoking within 50 feet of children, even if it's your own home.

The nerve, of telling how business-owners how to run their own establishments.

[Xerxes]

Absolutely ridiculous- and you leftist types consider yourselves concerned about individual freedoms? Please.

I am sure Marijuanna smoking in public will still b quite fine in Norway, i'm absolutely sure of it. :rolleyes:

[hestermofet]

I think we should take a hint from this conscientious parent, and enact legislation to force parents to make their kids wear helmets at all times. You never know when they'll fall of the couch, AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE!
http://www.childfaith.com/matthewpix/images/july/helmet3.jpg

[I am Jesus]

Ban by 2004? Why does it take that long?:weird:

[c2R]

I don't smoke, but neither do I support a ban on the freedom of the individual to do so. I agree with hester's statements - do we really want a nanny-state? There should be less laws and regulations, not more. Leave the police to sort out real crimes, like murders and burglaries.

It's just like all this crap that you shouldn't hit kids if they're bad, and you shouldn't let them play in the fields, for fear they might hurt themselves, and school are afraid to have high climbing frames, in case kids fall off and the parents sue.

I mean, please.

[dirkdeftly]

Oops, got the windows mixed up :o

anyway, GO NORWAY.
To hestermofet: You want to smoke, that's your decision, not ours. All we ask is that we don't have to breathe your shit :hang:

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Atero
To hestermofet: You want to smoke, that's your decision, not ours. All we ask is that we don't have to breathe your shit :hang:

I don't want to hear your rock crap. Let's ban stereos over 20watts. I don't want to hack and wheeze as a result of your obsession with motoring. Let's ban cars, vans, buses, and trucks. I don't want have to deal with drunken yelling at 4 in the morning. Let's ban alcohol.

[Merlin]

Then you can hack and wheeze as a result of yours and others' smoking instead :)

[Orgone_Man]

Here are some old thoughts on this new thread:

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106274

[hestermofet]

heh :D

It's not the act of smoking I'm defending (as I don't smoke myself, except for the occasional cigar), it's the implications. Business owners should be allowed to run their establishments as they wish. These aren't "public" places. They are bars, restaurants, and hotels. Take the right of the citizen to enjoy the fruits of his labor, and the entrepreneur to administer his business effectively, and you can take anything else away. The phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind.

[Orgone_Man]

Originally posted by hestermofet
heh :D

The phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind.

hmm.... "Homeland Security" was the first thing that came to my mind when I read that last sentence. Damn the deviant thoughts!

[zootm]

freedoms or no, as an asthmatic i'd have to push for more places that forbid smoking - but it will never happen voluntarily. if this movement is passing through in norway, then it must indicate that the public on a whole agree with it - it's not like here where there seems to be a culture of "cool" based around how quickly you can dig your own grave.

if it is socially acceptable to ban public smoking, then why not? it'll discourage social smoking, which will in turn diminish its "cool" factor, reducing peer pressure and other common reasons that people will start.

i can see your points, though - in particular i wouldn't be in favour of an all-out ban on smoking in public places here, it's too much of a cultural thing. this does, however, need to change, for the good of everyone.

[blumoon11]

Originally posted by Atero
GO NORWAY.
To hestermofet: You want to smoke, that's your decision, not ours. All we ask is that we don't have to breathe your shit :hang:

Amen to that, not only for hestermofet but all the smokers out there.
I hate the smell of it, and the way it sticks to your clothes and hair at clubs and pubs. And what about trying to kiss a smoker YUK!:eek:

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by zootm
if it is socially acceptable to ban public smoking, then why not?

Because that smacks of the majority strongarming the minority into submission. For the longest time, homosexuality was not socially acceptable...


I don't think democracy should be a standard by which to take away rights.

blumoon: I hate the sound of rock music, and all the cultural baggage that it entails (long hair, leather jackets... God, a rockerchick would be the worst date ever). Does that mean we should outlaw rock?

[blumoon11]

No, rock does not kill people by the hundreds.

[Avalon]

Originally posted by hestermofet


I don't want to hear your rock crap. Let's ban stereos over 20watts. I don't want to hack and wheeze as a result of your obsession with motoring. Let's ban cars, vans, buses, and trucks. I don't want have to deal with drunken yelling at 4 in the morning. Let's ban alcohol.

Yeah, but all of these other things do not have the same damaging effect that it may have with smoking.
In New York City, they did have a survay, and a study, and they found that in bars and lounges, the air was 10 times worse than it was in bus terminals, tunnels, and in general where croweded people walked around.
No offense to those who smoke, I don't care if you do it or not, but I'm not going to die because of it.
You may argue, "then don't go where anyone smokes", but what bar/club/lounge doesn't have smoking?

[hestermofet]

How many rockstars live beyond 30? :weird:

If we are going by casualties, we should also ban motorized transport. Or fast food. Heart disease is the number one killer in North America... kills more than emphysema, lung cancer, and esophageal cancer combined. PLUS MCDONALD'S TARGETS THEIR ADS TO KIDS AS YOUNG AS 4! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

And let's not forget the effluvium that fat people create. It's far worse than secondhand smoke.

[blumoon11]

Then knock your self out and GO FOR IT!!

[Avalon]

Originally posted by hestermofet
How many rockstars live beyond 30? :weird:

If we are going by casualties, we should also ban motorized transport. Or fast food. Heart disease is the number one killer in North America... kills more than emphysema, lung cancer, and esophageal cancer combined. PLUS MCDONALD'S TARGETS THEIR ADS TO KIDS AS YOUNG AS 4! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

Rockstars do the following things: drugs, smoke, EXCESSIVELY drink. If we were going by casualties, motorized transport has less deaths than those who have died from smoking. Yes hear disease is the number one killer in North America, but smoking also affects the heart along with the lungs. And McDonald's add don't do much of anything just because they serve food that appeals to children. It's not the childs nor McDonald's fault if they are fat, it's (oh my god, should I say it), the parents!

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Avalon
Rockstars do the following things: drugs, smoke, EXCESSIVELY drink.
THEN BAN ALL THREE! GOOD GOD, MAN, CAN'T YOU SEE? PEOPLE DIE AS A RESULT!

If we were going by casualties, motorized transport has less deaths than those who have died from smoking.
But people still die as a result of driving cars. And cars pollute... can't have secondhand car exhaust now, can we?

Yes hear disease is the number one killer in North America, but smoking also affects the heart along with the lungs.
THEN BAN MEAT, CIGARETTES, CARS, POINTY OBJECTS, AIRPLANES, ROLLERCOASTERS, BEES, PEANUTS, AND LIGHTENING!

And McDonald's add don't do much of anything just because they serve food that appeals to children.
So using cartoon characters and toys to entice kids to eat fat-laden, balls of lard does not count as targeting unhealthy products to kids?

[Avalon]

I'll answer you in the way I only can... with data. This is from the CDC.gov (the Center for Disease and Control.

Deaths related to smoking (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/attrdths.htm)

and

Deaths Per State that caused by smoking (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/statehi/html_2002/smoking_deaths.htm)

and lastly


Comparative Chart of Deaths by different causes (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/andths.htm)

Now realize what you are talking about.

[hestermofet]

Then let's ban heart disease. And AIDS. And all other diseases caused by lifestyle choice. Let's force people to exercise, and to wear condoms.

[Avalon]

If someone eats the wrong thing, they CAUSE THEMSELVES HEART DESEASE, When someone smokes in a bar/public area, I HAVE TO TAKE IN THE CRAP YOU SMOKE!

I really don't care if people smoke or not, I just really don't feel like inhailing rat poision, nail polish, among the other things I won't put into my mouth.

And this ISN'T comming from sone who hasn't smoked ever. I tried it, once, didn't like it put it down and away, and before I really didn't like it at all.

DEAL MAN DEAL!

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Avalon
When someone smokes in a bar/public area, I HAVE TO TAKE IN THE CRAP YOU SMOKE!

A) No, you don't.
B) A bar or restaurant is not a public area.


I still say we force people to wear condoms.

[Avalon]

A) Second hand smoke lingers, and if I am in a resturant/bar it lingers while I'm in there
B) Bars and Resturants are open to the public meaning that anyone can come in or out. (Or those legaly bound)

[hestermofet]

A) Then don't go to establishments that allow smoking. Or wear a mask, or something. Besides, should we ban cars because they pump out noxious gases?
B) My house, if I choose to make it so, can be open to the public (i.e. I hold a party). Should smoking in private residences be banned? Then why should smoking in private businesses be banned? If I own a business, I have the right to run it as I damn well please. I paid for the rent, I paid for the utilities, I paid for everything. It's MINE, and not the Public's.

[dirkdeftly]

hestermofet: Drinking in small amounts is good for you. Getting drunk occasionally is probably good for you in a sense because it reminds you not to get drunk so much. It's only drinking constantly that kills you. Smoking in small amounts occasionally still kills you. Just like many other drugs - which are already banned because they kill people.
However, since most people do drugs in the privacy of their own homes (so as not to get caught), their side effects aren't felt by sensible people. Smokers, however, are (or were, up until now) allowed to go anywhere they please and spread their toxic breath anywhere they wanted. Personally, I don't want to die because of someone elses life decision. Do note, before you go ranting on about cars, that I don't want to die because of some idiot who was drinking behind the wheel, either.

Why force people to wear condoms? The other party is concenting (hopefully).

Those 'public places' that they're talking about are, I'm pretty sure, restaurants (which are public places, btw). Correct me if I'm wrong. And non-smokers DO have to breathe the shit that wafts by from the smoking section. I heard an ad once that put it excellently: "Table for two, please." "First hand or second hand smoking?"

[Avalon]

Originally posted by hestermofet
A) Then don't go to establishments that allow smoking. Or wear a mask, or something. Besides, should we ban cars because they pump out noxious gases?
B) My house, if I choose to make it so, can be open to the public (i.e. I hold a party). Should smoking in private residences be banned? Then why should smoking in private businesses be banned? If I own a business, I have the right to run it as I damn well please. I paid for the rent, I paid for the utilities, I paid for everything. It's MINE, and not the Public's.

A) Yes, this is why cars are inspected to make sure they are up to code... but everyone drives with OIL. Sorry to say, but the greenhouse effect isn't taking a drastic effect as shortening your lifespan by a good 50 years.
B) Sure, but that's YOUR house, it's private, you own the property. For buissnesses (clubs/resturants), it's city owned land, they pay a lease for the space that they are on.
C) Yeah I could advoid bars and resturants and places, but say that's my social life, I have the freedom to go there.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Avalon
A) Yes, this is why cars are inspected to make sure they are up to code... but everyone drives with OIL. Sorry to say, but the greenhouse effect isn't taking a drastic effect as shortening your lifespan by a good 50 years.

It still makes you cough, hack, and wheeze, especially in the city. Even if they are up to current emission standards, they still pollute.

B) Sure, but that's YOUR house, it's private, you own the property. For buissnesses (clubs/resturants), it's city owned land, they pay a lease for the space that they are on.
Umm, no. If you pay a lease for a store, it's to the [private] developer of the property, not to the City.

C) Yeah I could advoid bars and resturants and places, but say that's my social life, I have the freedom to go there.
As do smokers.

[Avalon]

I have never hacked, coughed and wheeze... also the smoke generated by cars is not as harmful to you as they are by smoking... but air amission standards.

You pay the developer, the developer pays the city, you don't ever own the land, or the space, you just pay for it to be there.

And yes, they do have the right, I don't care if they do go or not, I just don't want to breathe in their shit.

It's like this see, someone has the right to go to a bar/resturant, but say they carry in a gun (unconcealed, which is legal), and shoot me, is it LEGAL for them to kill me? No. Smoking kills. The more I breathe it in, the more it kills me, so is that legal?

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Avalon
I have never hacked, coughed and wheeze... also the smoke generated by cars is not as harmful to you as they are by smoking... but air amission standards.

I have, as many others. North America is a relatively clean continent. Try somewhere like Eastern Europe or Asia.

You pay the developer, the developer pays the city, you don't ever own the land, or the space, you just pay for it to be there.
Say there's a block of derelict apartments. A developer buys these apartments. They apply to city council to have the land rezoned as commercial. The city approves the application, the developer tears them down, and builds a mall. You lease some space and open a restaurant. You lease the land, the developer owns the property. The city's (i.e. the Public's) only involvement is to rezone the land. Alternatively, you could have bought the apartments, in which case you would own the land on which the restaurant was built.

[b]And yes, they do have the right, I don't care if they do go or not, I just don't want to breathe in their shit.
Then wear a mask, or don't go wear smokers go. I greatly dislike perfume, but I still put up with it.

It's like this see, someone has the right to go to a bar/resturant, but say they carry in a gun (unconcealed, which is legal), and shoot me, is it LEGAL for them to kill me? No. Smoking kills. The more I breathe it in, the more it kills me, so is that legal?
Smoking does not kill in the same way a gun does. I do not smoke with the intention of killing you. You could have done many things to avoid being in the path of my smoke. It's like holding the owner of a TV tower responsible because you jumped off it. Even if you couldn't have avoided it, it's a part of the environment. Like car fumes, or industrial exhaust. The price of living in a modern world.

[Avalon]

:rolleyes:

Okay, you hate purfume, does it shave years off of your life? Seriously man.

Also, yes, you may "own" if you want to call is the land that the resturant "was" built, but that's not the argument, I'm talking about bars/resturants and "public" spaces, apartments are residential.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Avalon
:rolleyes:

Okay, you hate purfume, does it shave years off of your life? Seriously man.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same damn thing. Death is incidental. The principle is the same (the principle being, that I should be allowed to do what I damn well please on my own property, as long as I don't intentionally injure people ).

Also, yes, you may "own" if you want to call is the land that the resturant "was" built, but that's not the argument, I'm talking about bars/resturants and "public" spaces, apartments are residential.

So what makes the difference between residential and commercial properties? If a father smokes, his kids get his secondhand smoke, right? As far as I'm concerned, there [i]is no difference. A residential property is privately owned, as is a commercial one. So what if members of the public enter a commercial property? The property itself is not owned by the Public, so the Public cannot decide how it is run.

[Avalon]

Originally posted by hestermofet


So what makes the difference between residential and commercial properties? If a father smokes, his kids get his secondhand smoke, right? As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference. A residential property is privately owned, as is a commercial one. So what if members of the public enter a commercial property? The property itself is not owned by the Public, so the Public cannot decide how it is run.

All I'm saying is this, if it is a place that the public vists, the city has a right to take into concern and act on an actual health risk and death cause that causes more deaths to people.

[hestermofet]

NO!

I own a house. I decide to let some friends stay over. They end up staying a couple weeks. They realize that that's caused me quite a bit of expense, so they pay me. I realize, "hey, I can make money off this!", so I let in any stranger who wants a place to stay, so long as they pay this. I'm basically running a hotel, BUT IT'S MY OWN PROPERTY. It's my house. Why should the government tell me how I can live in my own house.

Members of the public visit my hotel. The Public does not. These particular members of the public enter my establishment consensually. If they do not like how I run the place, they can leave. No one is forcing them to visit my particular establishment.

[dirkdeftly]

Actually, technically that's illegal, since you don't have a business license :)

For your house to be public, ANYONE must be able to walk in there at will and expect to be allowed to stay there for a reasonably indefinite amount of time. Bars are not fully public as a minor cannot enter a bar without an adult guardian. Nor is your house, because it is private property. And don't give me that bull about "But it's my house, I'll let people in!" You're only saying that for the sake of argument.

But it doesn't really matter, now does it? They're talking about specific places - probably restaurants, stores and the like. Places where everybody has the right to breathe healthy air. The fact remains, drinking in and of itself does not cause the people in the vicinity of the drinker any physical harm, nor do drugs (that aren't burnt, of course), nor do microwave ovens (unless you have a pacemaker), nor do cell phones (unless you're a paranoid anti-technological freak, in which case you wouldn't be using a cell phone in the first place). If I want to go down to a Denny's and half a waffle at 11:30 P.M. I should be able to do that without having to breath cigarette smoke. It's disgusting, foul, and unhealthy. Did I make the choice to smoke a cigarette? No, I didn't. So I shouldn't have to be breathing it.

[hestermofet]

Why should Denny's be under obligation to provide you with clean air? Because smoking is disgusting, foul, and unhealthy? So are their sausages, but they're still allowed to serve them :igor:

(and yes, my example would be illegal, but it illustrates a point)

[dirkdeftly]

Except...no. Because it's illegal.

Denny's was an example. Take another restaurant and use that in it's place. In any case, they're a restaurant and they're there to serve food. I go there to eat food. Not to breathe cigarette smoke. I could catch cancer there - perhaps they should give you a warning from the Surgeon General when you walk in? No, they shouldn't; their profits would plummet faster then you can say 'emphysema.' So what should they do? The least we ask is that you hold of your disgusting habit for the 45 mins to an hour so that the sensible portion of the populus can breathe easily.

Oh, and I've got a question for you: If it's bad for a minor to smoke a cigarette, then why is it perfectly okay with you that minors can breathe second hand smoke?

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Atero
Denny's was an example. Take another restaurant and use that in it's place. In any case, they're a restaurant and they're there to serve food. I go there to eat food. Not to breathe cigarette smoke.
Isn't it possible that part of the atmosphere of an establishment is cigarette smoke? Ever been to a pool hall? A pub? It's not just about food.

I could catch cancer there - perhaps they should give you a warning from the Surgeon General when you walk in? No, they shouldn't; their profits would plummet faster then you can say 'emphysema.' So what should they do? The least we ask is that you hold of your disgusting habit for the 45 mins to an hour so that the sensible portion of the populus can breathe easily.

That decision should be up to the owner of the business to make, not the Government's. If he/she feels that allowing smoking will cut too far into profits, he/she can decide to not allow smoking on their premises.

Oh, and I've got a question for you: If it's bad for a minor to smoke a cigarette, then why is it perfectly okay with you that minors can breathe second hand smoke?

I'm not exactly sure it's a bad thing. We allow McDonald's to target 4 year olds, so why not Rothman's? The obsession with preventing cigarette advertising being targeted to youth has ruined many great cultural events. In Canada, for example, Toronto no longer holds to Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire-- an event in which symphony's around the world play a piece synchronized with a pyrotechnics display. All because we don't want our precious kids to fall into the clutches of the Big Bad Tobacco Companies. The very next day, we hand them a 10 spot, and tell them to buy a Big Mac for lunch.

[dirkdeftly]

You really are a moron, aren't you? A restaurant IS just about the food. That's why it's a restaurant! A pub/bar is about drinking and/or smoking and/or food. It's not the same thing. You'll notice that they don't ban smoking in pubs/bars for that reason.

You keep exaggerating things like this. Four or five Big Macs won't kill you. Four of five cigarettes can. Quite frankly, I'm appalled at the amount of parents who send their kids out to get fast food burgers for lunch, and let them drink sodas for breakfast, etc. It's just plain irresponsible. But not quite as irresponsible as allowing minors to smoke. It's the same with drinking: their body's are smaller, so there's less room for smoke/alcohol to take up. And just to catch you once again before you start ranting: It's a whole lot easier just to put a label, such as the age of 18, on people than to test everybody to see how much alcohol their body can take and then declare them a minor or an adult. And, if you think that means the government is slacking off, then you go out and you see if you can do that, okay? Thanks.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Atero
You really are a moron, aren't you?

Way to win an argument.







You don't deserve a reply.

[PhotoFx]

in an attempt to try and calm things down...

i agree with hester in principle, banning a personal choice (however moronic) cannot possibly be benificial in the long run. if we were to ban or limit all the unintentional causes of people killing other people, we would have to ban many of the "conveniences" of modern life. we would need to ban alchohol, and cars, because drunks can be belligerent, and cause the death of someone, and people can get sleepy, or stop paying attention, and cause the death of an innocent bystander, it's called vehicular manslaughter.

and, to be reasonable, i don't think smoking 5 ciggarettes is going to have much more of a damaging effect than eating 5 big macs. if nothing else, the big macs encourage you to keep eating (they're not all that bad tasting), and from what i hear, smoking for hte first time really isn't the most pleasant thing in the world.

that being said, if a place wants my business, a good way to go is to not allow smoking.

[c2R]

Firstly, pubs and bars *are* public places - pub is short for "public house"; anyone is welcome in.

However, banning smoking would be the thin end of the wedge. Pressure should be put on manufacturers to create non-addictive cigarettes gradually, which would possibly make less people smoke.

There's a McDonalds opened in town. Horrible kids hang around outside, rubbish is dropped everywhere, and chewing gum too. They've already "accidently" dumped gallons of cooking fat and the like into the sewers, causing more of a rat problem. It also creates an all-pervasive offensive smell, and the "food" they serve is basically a heart-attack in a bun.

I say we ban McDonalds. You might as well ban alcohol from the pub as well, really, as it causes people to become violent and sick everywhere.


Sorry, but I witnessed the closure of many of the local country pubs in the decade after the breathylizer was introduced, as people could no longer drive to them for a night out. Many others were forced to turn into hotels and restaurants. If smoking was banned too, you'd alienate a great deal of the people that actually go to the remaining pubs, which would then close.

And then what about the pesticides and stuff they spray on the crops. It can't be good to breathe that in - why not ban it too. Then crop yields would decrease leading perhaps to famine, or an increase in imports from abroad.

The Norwegians and other countries considering such a ban need to take a reality check here... as I said before, the cigarette manufacturers need to be forced to change the cigarettes to make them less addictive. This will only be possible with government legislation - but then again, who would bite of the arm that feeds it? Think of the revenue gained by the government from tobacco sales...

[Aquila Blue]

I am glad that there is going to be total ban on smoking in public places. In my opinion smoking is a disgusting habit that meerly burns your money, makes you smell bad, and can cause cancer and various other diseases.

Some people seem to be really up in arms about banning smoking in restaurants and bars. However, there have been smoking bans for years on offices and workplaces. It's important to keep in mind that a bar and a restaurant is also someone's work place. I don't think those employees should be subjected to someone's second hand smoke anymore than a bank teller should get smoke blown in their faces by the person they are serving at the moment.

Frankly, I really miss the total restuarant smoking ban that is in place in the major cities of Canada. In London, there are still smoking sections, and it's very annoying. Yesterday, my friend and I had to go to a few different restaurants until we found one with room in their non-smoking section. Before the total smoking ban on restaurants in some cities in Canada, I found that whenever a restaurant is busy, it's always the non-smoking section that was either full or had a long waiting list. I think that says something too. Afterall, if you were to go to an expensive restaurant, would you really want your meal to be ruined by someone else's air pollutants? I am all for total smoking bans.

Here's another interesting stat to mull over, in the UK, the incidence (number of new cases per year) of lung cancer is around 40,000. However, at any given time, there are only about 20,000 people who have the disease. Basically it means you die pretty quickly once you get it.

[dirkdeftly]

"You don't deserve a reply."

Having trouble thinking of more twistedly exaggerated 'examples' of why everyone should be able to kill themselves and the people in their vicinity at the same time?
Personally I think it's disgusting that so many people are dying from lung cancer when they've never smoked a cigarette in their life. But no, that's fine, it was their fault for being around smokers, wasn't it?

c2r: Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that (I assume you mean minors as well). However, over here in good ole' "Let's bomb somebody!" America, minors are not allowed into bars, so bars aren't fully public :)

[zootm]

Originally posted by Atero
c2r: Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that (I assume you mean minors as well). However, over here in good ole' "Let's bomb somebody!" America, minors are not allowed into bars, so bars aren't fully public :)
pubs are 18+, or 16+ with parent/guardian, clubs are strictly 18 or 21+. bars are *strictly* over 18s over - if there is a family part, it has to be separated. people are (by law) adults at the age of 18 here, rather than 21 (which i believe it is in the US). of course, you do get places which are a whole area with a bar at one side - the drink can be taken throughout the premises...

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Atero
"You don't deserve a reply."

Having trouble thinking of more twistedly exaggerated 'examples' of why everyone should be able to kill themselves and the people in their vicinity at the same time?

You can't go around calling people morons just because you disagree with them :hang:

[PhotoFx]

i think the polite thing to do at this point would be to ignore each other.

aquila, i agree with you, but still, it should be up to the owner of the pub or restaurant whether to allow it. if that means allowing non-smoking employees to sue the owner for health costs (as much as i'm against giving people an excuse to take money from each other for trivial causes (yes, i know health is not trivial)), then so be it. but i refer to my earlier examples as well. there are other causes for death from other people, smoking is not the only example. and if we're to ban one, it's only fitting to ban the others... :(.

[Aquila Blue]

Originally posted by PhotoFx

aquila, i agree with you, but still, it should be up to the owner of the pub or restaurant whether to allow it.

but by that same logic, then it should be up to the CEO of companies to decide whether some of their employees should be allowed to puff away in their cube and bother the rest of their workers, but the regulation of smoking in office buildings does not work that way. I know it is a bit different with bars and restaurants since it is some of the clients that are the offenders, however, I think that as long as every place does it and the ban in enforced, no venue will lose business. They actually may see an increase in business. I am slightly allergic to cigarette smoke and I tend to avoid smoky pubs and bars because it the smokes makes it hard to breath, chokes me up and in general brings the quality of my time way down. If these venues were non-smoking, I'd probably go more often. I'm sure some other non-smokers feel the same way I do. Plus, it would be really nice to not have my clothes stink the next day.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by PhotoFx
it should be up to the owner of the pub or restaurant whether to allow it. if that means allowing non-smoking employees to sue the owner for health costs (as much as i'm against giving people an excuse to take money from each other for trivial causes (yes, i know health is not trivial)), then so be it.
Exactly. If people are so against smoking in business establishments, marketplace forces will ensure that business-owners stop allowing smoking in their premises. If enough people avoid a business because of it's smoky atmosphere, the business-owner will take a big profit hit, and will have to reevaluate how he's running his establishment. If, however, a business-owner decides to allow smoking in her business, that should be her right.

but i refer to my earlier examples as well. there are other causes for death from other people, smoking is not the only example. and if we're to ban one, it's only fitting to ban the others... :(.

Exactly, again. Like I've said previously, banning smoking on private property is indicative of a greater trend towards prohibitive legislation.

[Aquila Blue]

however, by your reasoning, everything on the premesis of say a privately owned factory or privately owned restaurant should be completely up to the owner. However, that would be very foolish. There are occupational health and safety laws that are drawn up by governments and enforced in every workplace, as there should be. Otherwise, owners could save costs by having shoddy safety equipment (if they chose to provide any at all) and put their employee at risk in numerous other ways, just because they chose to and don't think that they should be bothered with things like occupational safety. I know you can argue that they do it because otherwise they'd get sued when accidents occur and lose manhours due to workplace related illness, but that's not the main reason safety issues are enforced, it's because there is legislation saying that they have to.

With smoking, it's not exactly the same issue, but it can still be considered a workplace health and safety issue. Sure the effects are not as direct as having a steel bar fall on your head and crush you, but smoking is a hazard that does effect your health. Also the cost of the government and health insurance companies after you get lung cancer is incredibly high. Much better to try to stop it in the first place. If you want to think of it in grim terms as death, it would probably be faster and less painful to be crushed by a piece of heavy machinery then to suffer the pain of lung cancer.

[zootm]

Originally posted by hestermofet
Exactly, again. Like I've said previously, banning smoking on private property is indicative of a greater trend towards prohibitive legislation.
...which is why i'm not in favour of it - smoking in public is, however, a nuisance to the public in general, and if the majority of people do not, and if a ban is generally acceptable, i see no reason not to ban it.

[henry3k56]

Good! No more nasty smoking which is gross. There are certain liberties of having clean, good, filtered, smokefree air. With doing so of those personal liberties you're inhaling bad air caused because of some stupid person which cares mostly on smoking his/hers putrid smell of cigarrette smoke and ashes inside his/her lungs.

If I had it my way, genetically create a disease that will only kill Tobacco Leaves, and any other substance abuse plants that are used to produce harmful drugs to eventually stop all these bad drugs.;)

[Aquila Blue]

Originally posted by henry3k56

If I had it my way, genetically create a disease that will only kill Tobacco Leaves, and any other substance abuse plants that are used to produce harmful drugs to eventually stop all these bad drugs.;)

hmmmm, we could do something with the Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) I bet... I think this calls for a collaboration henry, but I get first author on the paper ;)

[eleet-2k2]

Originally posted by hestermofet
It's indicative of a larger trend... a political culture where it's ok to take away guns, the right to discipline your kids, and so forth. A populace of happy, fat and stupid people. Next, we'll have some stupid law forbidding smoking within 50 feet of children, even if it's your own home.

The nerve, of telling how business-owners how to run their own establishments. I disagree.

Guns --> you can own them as long as proper procedures are followed to keep them away from children, and a thourough screen process to apply for a liscence

Disciplining kids --> gov't should stay the fuck outta that cuz it's private (unless you beat your kid savagely, then you should be placed in a burlap sack, rolled down a steep, rocky hill, then beaten yourself for at least an hout, and then jailed for a while till you get the help and anger management you need.)

Happy people are good. fat a stupid people? Firstly, that's America (by far and no offense to my American friends). Also I find it hard to believe that because of this supposed culture that it will make people stupid, and bring children up stupid for that matter. I believe computers and television are the cause for stupidity in most cases.

In regards to your comment about smoking with children's proximity, I doubt those laws will be passed, if they are created. I know that around hospitals, it's illegal to smoke within 10 metres of all entrances (or the main entrances, not sure).

Finally, I think the government has the right to tell you that you cant let people smoke in your establishments (unless you have a specific section completely enclosed from the non-smoking patrons (like a private room) and it must be well ventilated. There is no problem with this since smoking affects everyone's health. If you want to smoke, go outside.

[hestermofet]

I know you can argue that they do it because otherwise they'd get sued when accidents occur and lose manhours due to workplace related illness, but that's not the main reason safety issues are enforced, it's because there is legislation saying that they have to.

And I will. It's not the government's place to enforce a set of rules on an industry of which it has no knowledge about. It should leave business alone.

Market forces will ensure worker safety. Unionized labor plays a part in this; if a business is too unsafe, the workers can organize, and affect change. The desires of the workers, and of the employers will meet, and a compromise will be made. No parties will get everything they want, but all parties will be satisfied, because they will reach the Nash Equilibrium.

A great explanation was given in the movie A Beautiful Mind. There are three guys in a bar, and they are all pining for the same blond. They won't get her, though, because their interests conflict (obviously). Instead, they set their sights a bit lower, and each walks out that night with a brunette.

If the Government intervenes, however, and tries to establish a set of guidelines regarding something such as worker safety, the compromise will be artificial. None of the parties agreed to the guidelines; they were dictated to them.

<edit=as an after thought>
Besides, if someone is killed or injured as a result of a work-related accident, in addition to being sued, the business can be charged with criminal negligence. Why create new laws when sufficient ones already exist?</edit>

As for something which directly affects members of the public, such as kitchen cleanliness, again, market forces will ensure that a standard suitable to the demand of the public is met. In a truly competitive business environment, information is free. Consumers can freely find out how clean or dirty a kitchen is. They will then avoid restaurants they deem dirty, and patronize ones they feel are clean enough. "Dirty" restaurants will be forced to clean up, or else face a continual loss of customers.


So that's just really a long-winded way of saying that no, I don't support Government imposed worker safety guidelines either. The government should only intervene when neither side in a labor negotiation can agree, and only in a role of arbitration.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by zootm

...which is why i'm not in favour of it - smoking in public is, however, a nuisance to the public in general, and if the majority of people do not, and if a ban is generally acceptable, i see no reason not to ban it.

If the majority of the public does not want a smoking environment, businesses will be forced to respond to this demand, or lose revenue. The Government doesn't need to make this choice for businesses.

[henry3k56]

Originally posted by Aquila Blue


hmmmm, we could do something with the Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) I bet... I think this calls for a collaboration henry, but I get first author on the paper ;)
ok,
I'll take care of the nice copyright ownership then. :D

But if any reprecussions happen to occur because of this idea. Lets blame someone else, and we'll help attempt to fix it. ;)

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Atero
hestermofet: Drinking in small amounts is good for you. Getting drunk occasionally is probably good for you in a sense because it reminds you not to get drunk so much. It's only drinking constantly that kills you.
Drinking is never good for you. One of the dyes in red wine is good for you, but you can buy that as a dietary supplement. Alcohol is a poison.

Getting drunk "because it reminds you not to get drunk so much" is just stupid. Rat poison probably makes me sick. I should go eat some to remind me about that. :rolleyes:

Only drinking constantly kills you? I'm pretty sure that alcohol poison causes real death. Regardless, one cigarette will not kill you. Neither will an occassional exposure to second-hand smoke.

Originally posted by Avalon
Okay, you hate purfume, does it shave years off of your life? Seriously man.

Also, yes, you may "own" if you want to call is the land that the resturant "was" built, but that's not the argument, I'm talking about bars/resturants and "public" spaces, apartments are residential.
1. Perfume lowers my quality of life. I'd testify to that in court. Quality of life is more important than the length of life. Any decent doctor will tell you that.

2. Bars/restaurants are NOT public places. Privately owned. Did you see the word. You know the one. Private.

Originally posted by Atero
Actually, technically that's illegal, since you don't have a business license :)
Exactly. So the government gets to strong arm businesses into agreeing with their beliefs. You can't open a business unless you agree to refuse to let people smoke. What about when the government requires businesses to log everyone who enters and exits. (it's going to happen, eventually) are you going to stand by and say "it's a public place", like that's some sort of justification?

For your house to be public, ANYONE must be able to walk in there at will and expect to be allowed to stay there for a reasonably indefinite amount of time. Bars are not fully public as a minor cannot enter a bar without an adult guardian. Nor is your house, because it is private property. And don't give me that bull about "But it's my house, I'll let people in!" You're only saying that for the sake of argument.
Anyone who walks into a bar, restaurant, or store does so willingly. Maybe I will just let people in. Does the fact that I'm "only saying it" affect the validity of the argument?

Originally posted by Atero
Four or five Big Macs won't kill you. Four of five cigarettes can.

Someone once said:
You really are a moron, aren't you?

Originally posted by Aquila Blue
but by that same logic, then it should be up to the CEO of companies to decide whether some of their employees should be allowed to puff away in their cube and bother the rest of their workers, but the regulation of smoking in office buildings does not work that way.
That's completely different. People have to work if they aren't going to sponge off the government. People don't have to go to bars, and they certainly don't have to go to bars that allow smoking. It's a choice. Working isn't really a choice.

[Aquila Blue]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George

That's completely different. People have to work if they aren't going to sponge off the government. People don't have to go to bars, and they certainly don't have to go to bars that allow smoking. It's a choice. Working isn't really a choice.

It's not. I'm not talking about the clientel here, I'm talking about the people who have to work in the bars and restaurants, the people who are the waiters who have to wade into smoke enclosed rooms, the bartenders who have to deal with customers blowing smoke in their faces, all because they have to work. True, working isn't a choice, and these employees should not have to work in an environment that is harzardous to their health. I'm pretty sure the legislation is not totally for public benefit, but it falls under occupational health and safety to protect the workers in these environments.

Another thing is that I don't believe that companies will self-regulate themselves when it comes to occupational health and safety. There is quite a high unemployment pool in many industralized countries as long as the job does not require very skilled labour, there will always be a work force that is willing to not ask questions and accept shoddy safety standards simply because they want to work. A person on an assembly line in some factory is probably not likely to make a big stink about conditions since he knows there are 10 people waiting to take over his job. Companies aren't going to self-regulate themselves if they know they have pretty much a steady stream of people who are willing to work in hazardous conditions meerly so they can work, regardless of the risk. That's why governments need to step in and regulate workplace safety.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Aquila Blue
A person on an assembly line in some factory is probably not likely to make a big stink about conditions since he knows there are 10 people waiting to take over his job.

Exactly, and that's where unionized labor comes in. Don't underestimate the ability of organized workers to affect change. The bulk of progress in the terms of worker conditions in the past two centuries were the result of union action, not government intervention.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Aquila Blue
It's not. I'm not talking about the clientel here, I'm talking about the people who have to work in the bars and restaurants, the people who are the waiters who have to wade into smoke enclosed rooms, the bartenders who have to deal with customers blowing smoke in their faces, all because they have to work. True, working isn't a choice, and these employees should not have to work in an environment that is harzardous to their health. I'm pretty sure the legislation is not totally for public benefit, but it falls under occupational health and safety to protect the workers in these environments.
I misunderstood your point. That's a valid argument, and I'm not really sure how to respond. Maybe something will occur to me later.

[hestermofet]

Unionized labor :)

If workers are so against it, they can take action. Strike, peaceful negotiations, whatever. By enacting legislation, though, even working environments in which the employers and employees both decide that they are ok with smoke are forced to make a smoke-free business.

although, personally, I consider it an occupational hazard.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by hestermofet
although, personally, I consider it an occupational hazard.
Also a valid point. :)