Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Does this infringe human rights?
but passive smoking does.
banning lynchings infringes human rights :p
many things infringe your human rights on a daily basis
but not this
i'm pretty sure the big stick i'm procuring to beat smokers with certainly will!!!
Bloody nice it was too..
like heaven, I hate stinking of smoke after going to a pub.
make you feel ill?!??!
i do about eight million a day, i'm going to be a pub meance come july :(
there'll be no naked flames anywhere near you.
roll on July 1st.
where's my stick?
(the powder, not state of being)
because there is no reason not to have Smoking pubs as well.
why someone should risk getting cancer etc or simply smell like smoke as a result of someone elses choice to smoke.
"because there is no reason not to have Smoking pubs as well."
don't go into pubs which are defined as smoking pubs.
I don't especially want people to be sick on the streets. Ban all alcohol then by that reasoning.
why should some workplaces allow smoking, but others not?
can't smoke in my face anymore. Result. Considering I'm basically the only non smoker out of all my mates, this rules.
Hahahahaha (repeat till fade).
people working in such pubs would have to give their consent to it.
It really isn't a hard thing to do...
it wouldn't work.
they'll sue the fuck out of the pubs even though they made the choice to work there.
shouldnt mean that they have to put up with something thats damaging to their health. its like saying ok im gonna stand in somewhere that you wanna go and shout in your face constantly.
it's really simple:
you go for a job in a pub. you ask whether it's a Smoking pub or a Non-Smoking pub. you choose accordingly.
By agreeing to work in such a pub, they would be accepeting of any risks.
If they don't wanna do it, then don't work in a smoking pub.
That analogy is possibly the worst i've ever read on this site.
but i couldnt think of anything to make my point
saying what was said there is like saying people who have a job cleaning toilets shouldnt have to clean toilets because its an unpleasant job.
is being brought in to protect the people working in pubs.
in these pubs the people would give their consent to work in a smoking pub.
when they get cancer they'll sue the fuck out of the pubs even though they made the choice to work there.
it's bullshit, too.
Legislation would have to be brought in to protect the pubs possibly, cos UCTA at the moment overrules any health and safety considerations.
bullshit. they'd still sue. and win probably.
the class action suits against the tobacco corporations date back from smokers in the 70's.
No-one will win who starts smoking now.
i have no faith.
is supreme in English law.
If legislation was enacted the courts couldn't find in favor of the claimants
it's only a hypothetical situation that'll never ever happen.
Most people who smoke want to do so where they please.
Most people that dont smoke dont want them to because it affects them.
People should be given the choice to smoke, as long as its not affecting other people.
because pubs will basically be cutting their possible market by choosing to be smoking or non smoking
people who wanna smoke and drink would go to smoking pubs.
and pubs already define their market themselves already.
and vice versa. just, smokers wouldn't be able to spark up in Non-Smoking Pubs.
how fucking hard is this concept to understand?!?!?!?!?!?
where they couldnt smoke anyway whats the problem with banning it in all pubs?
Smokers are allowed in non-smoking areas as long as they don't smoke.
caused by someone elses choice to do something
You'd want the right to come into my house and make me stop smoking?
In smoking pubs people would smoke, you'd just have to accept that.
I suggest you ask the government to ban all cars.
cos they are much more likely to give you cancer.
do what you like there, doesnt affect anyone else
That would supposedly affect you there...
I don't know you.
deciding between non smoking and smoking is a lose lose situation.
I'm sure a smoking pub would attract enough disgruntled smokers to make up for the loss of some non-smokers.
first drink in a pub without a cigarette in almost a year.
it's going to be strange.
but, in practice, would any pubs actually change?
I think you'd end up with very few non-smoking pubs. And what about gig venues? presumably they'd all stay smoking, given the number of people at gigs who seem to smoke. Not really fair on people who want to go and see the band.
i.e. at gigs, then it would be non-smoking as mandatory.
we're talking about pubs only.
like they should be able to choose when they smoke, without being inconvienced by people who dont particularly want to smell, and die earlier
I'm sorry but you are being really stupid.
we are talking about special pubs where smokers can smoke if they so wish.
All other pubs would ban smoking.
How is that giving all the choice to smokers?
'well where there's no way for non-smokers to avoid it'
this surely places the emphasis on choice with the smoker.
a non smoker in a smoking pub couldn't complain about the smoking.
A smoker in a non smoking pub couldn't complain about being told not to smoker.
It really isn't that difficult a concept.
that gigs and similar things that non-smokers would inherently want to go to would be kept non-smoking?
so, how does that benefit the smokers?
we're talking a smoking pubs to non-smoking pubs ratio of like, 1:10 here.
how the fuck does that give more choice to the smoker?
are you reading this at all?
right: non-smoking pubs - where smokers and non-smokers can go to but where no smoking will occur. these pubs would be better for non-smokers, i would imagine. hence giving them the choice.
smoking pubs - where smokers and non-smokers can go to but where smoking occurs. smokers would like these best and might choose these ones over the non-smoking ones.
seriously mate, it's just a hypothetical situation. and how you're not getting it is completely beyond me.
but i personally think it would be unworkable
gigs would become non-smoking.
Perhaps there would have to be a quota on the number of smoking pubs, like there used to be on the number of actual pubs.
These are small problems which are not insurmountable.
whilst the principle of your idea might be good, its not really pheasible.
pubs have to have licenses.
They would have to apply for a special smoking license.
If say there were already two smoking pubs within a 10 minute walk they would not be granted a smoking license.
I think it is an eminently feasible idea.
and very workable.
im still not sure i agree. While I'd never agree with a complete smoking ban, I think making unacceptable in enclosed public spaces is an excellent idea. If smokers have to smoke outside they'd probably smoke less. Health benfits all round.
fundamentally the government should be there to help the populace, not tell them what is best for me.
i dont think they should be able to tell people not to smoke. but you could sa it's helping people cut down. or those who want to stop but get draw into it in the pub.
It's just matter of how you devide help from telling what to do...
and they have a smoking ban that had just come in. And nobody understood it. but there were 7 or 8 licenses for smoking pubs in the city, that places could apply for.
so i think it is workable.
but i want to be able to go to a small dingy pub! just i would prefer it if i didnt stink or smoke afterwards.
the fact that you can smoke in a pub isnt enough to stop me going at all,
i just think generally people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesnt affect someone else, smoking in an enclosed place affects others.
Driving a car affects others
Essentially you are being really selfish. You want everything to be the way YOU want it to be.
i mean things people can control, that harm other people.
regardless of what you do. Alcohol doesnt.
i really hate it.
i don't want to discuss it.
in the current international circumstances, getting lung cancer from passive smoking later in life isn't really something we should be worrying about.
pollution is gonna kill millions more than passive smoking will or ever has.
it's another example of the government choosing to get hard on our ass about an insignificant, but emotive, issue, to detract from bigger things.
exactly the same as fox hunting.
let's talk about war. let's talk about pollution. let's talk about stuff which will impact on the lives of millions of people. not this.
doesnt mean that you only concentrate on that though surely?
worded differently- just because a major issue concerns you shouldnt mean you think about that and that only.
to be honest.
legislating for the sole purpose of annoying some of the electorate and taking their mind off big issues is bad.
i wasnt arguing with that, just simply the idea that because something at the minute is important, everything else should be dropped.
i killed three people last night - do the police care? nah. i wasn't smoking at the time.
sad but true.
when all the smokers are nipping outside for a swift one.I suppose its part of the overall idea though.
Still, most pubs in scotland smell of secondhand smoke, which is far worse. plus you can smell the booze and puke that smoke disguises.
The change between english and scottish pubs has been quite noticeable for me.
I'd like to point out that i do support the ban. Pubs are a pleasanter environment in scotland but they seem to have lost something and its the only real difference i can establish.