I'm not entirely sure how your health care system works, but here every injured motorcyclist or anyone who needs some kind of care costs me money from my taxes. I'm not fond paying taxes to fix possible damages of tobacco. I rather have the money used to something better, because I'm waiting the answer to what good tobacco does.
If they ban bikes, I'll carefully research what THE most polluting, loud, ugly bike is, and buy it.
I will then ride around whilst smoking, without a helmet, without tax or MoT, insurance etc. I will also, in my other hand (
) carry a baseball bat, and will attempt to hit the car of every police officer or 'government pansy' (i.e. anyone who works for a council; easily identified by a glazed, confused expression and no backbone).
Life will be great (for a short period).
I will then ride around whilst smoking, without a helmet, without tax or MoT, insurance etc. I will also, in my other hand (
) carry a baseball bat, and will attempt to hit the car of every police officer or 'government pansy' (i.e. anyone who works for a council; easily identified by a glazed, confused expression and no backbone).Life will be great (for a short period).
See one of my posts up there somewhere ^^
The cost to the health service is small compared to the amount of taxation collected on tobacco products and from the tobacco industry itself.
There's your good point...It provides a large amount of Govt revenue, which sort of means it keeps the taxes that you pay lower, being a non smoker.
It gives self-righteous people like yourself something to complain about.
Well, on the weekends that Kimi wins anyway - all the other weekends you seem content with complaining about how much better Hamilton's car is. 
You should ask Dan about that yellow girls bike he had. The yellow was both loud and ugly, but I don't know if it qualifies as light pollution.
I would, and I think full-face should be the law too, on bikes, scooters, trikes, quads, cars without screens too. But that's a bit o/t.
That said, I do care about who and what system decides the laws we have to abide by. Fortunately there is no current law that I am directly opposed to.
In my eye smokers lost there right when they decided to smoke and shorten there life span by half, why the hell should none smokers suffer all the crappy air smoke in pubs and feel like shit because some smoker feels it was cool back when they was a teenager.
My sister smokes like's hell and smells of it when she gets home from work, it's that bad i can't stand to be near her because the taste is that annoying to me.
My sister smokes like's hell and smells of it when she gets home from work, it's that bad i can't stand to be near her because the taste is that annoying to me.
Well, I got to say I love arguing and talking about things sensibly. But there nothing wrong in that, long as the insults don't go low as who has the better F1 driver.
edit2.
It's hard to believe that total expenses on smoking would be only 1,8 millions. I'm not sure how your health care works but I think most of to expenses are covered by insurances? Not to mention that smokers are less effective in their work as they are having a brake every 30 minutes or so, take more days off from work and have more lung infections. GDP gets lower and your economy will crash!!!!!....man I could make a evil politician, should have listened my teacher.
On current evidence I still think Kimi is the faster driver, but his form has been awful this season. It's like watching Brazil in the world cup finals when they're not really trying.
I don't agree. Non-smokers have gained a liberty: the freedom to enjoy a drink or a meal in a place that doesn't stink.
Before the ban, non-smokers had the "choice" to either put up & shut up, or to stay at home. The standards had been set by smokers when they were in the majority. The owners of pubs and restaurants would not risk losing the clients they had, in order to win the clients they didn't have.
It might be disputable whether the effects of indirect smoking, the addictiveness, or the cost of health care really warrant a ban. But I'm still in favour of a ban, because for me the smell of smoke has too often spoiled a fine meal, and has made me wary of visiting a restaurant. I'm looking forward to the day when smoking will be as socially acceptable as farting.
Logically, you're wrong. They always had that liberty. Lots of restaurants near me have operated a no-smoking policy for years. Lots of others didn't. You always had a choice. Now you don't. A liberty has definitely been lost due to legislation.
For years anyone/everyone had the option to start a no-smoking bar or pub if they wished. Now nobody has the right to start a smoking bar or pub if they wished. The law encroaches on previously unhindered liberties.
The mistake was made way earlier: When it became ok to smoke, especially in public... Back then, there were dedicated smoker lounges, where one could go sit and enjoy smoking... People crossed the line when they didn't act to limit smoking to those lounges... Now, they go for the other extreme, which obviously isn't the best choice as well... Although something has to be done to get the thought of smoking in public being ok and tolerable out of people's heads...
Best argument I've heard against the new legislation.Didn't Roy Castle die from lung cancer after performing in smoky bars all his life and was also a non smoker?
Wiki says:
"He blamed his illness on years of playing the trumpet in smoky jazz clubs, having never been a regular smoker in his life and not even tried a cigarette since his schooldays."
Yes it's a tenuous link as of course you can't scientifically (yet) blame the lung cancer on passive smoke.
Is this a smoking ban for just restaraunts/pubs/bars? We've had a smoking ban here in California for several years in restaraunts only, and it is great to be honest. I am not a smoker, and have a friend that smokes... so I am somewhat used to the stench and dirty air. But when it comes to that junk floating around when you are trying to eat, eughhh. Much better with the law in place.
Roy Castle himself said that he believed that was the cause. I heard an interview with him, where he was asked if there was ANY demonstrable link with his disease and the smokey pubs and clubs, and he said that there was no evidence to substantiate it, but he believed it to be the case anyway.
I think the smoking ban was great and has worked well in Scotland the last wee while.
The way I see it is why should a smoker have more rights than me, to force me to go outside and grab some fresh air every hour? Hell they most likely end up stretching the NHS even more for something so pointless. Smoking doesn't fufill any requirement needed to live...
I work in a karting centre and we recon (yet to test it) that you breath more carbon manoxiadte from a small group of smokers than you do while standing down on track with 14 karts running. For health and safety reasons we have to have sufficient ventaliation and montior the carbon manoxiadte readings, so why didn't pubs/restauratnts have to as well?
Maybe because it's not you that has to view the mangled wreck? Why should the police/paramedics/fire brigade have to view someone's face worn through to the skull as it's scraped down the tarmac?
The way I see it is why should a smoker have more rights than me, to force me to go outside and grab some fresh air every hour? Hell they most likely end up stretching the NHS even more for something so pointless. Smoking doesn't fufill any requirement needed to live...
I work in a karting centre and we recon (yet to test it) that you breath more carbon manoxiadte from a small group of smokers than you do while standing down on track with 14 karts running. For health and safety reasons we have to have sufficient ventaliation and montior the carbon manoxiadte readings, so why didn't pubs/restauratnts have to as well?
Maybe because it's not you that has to view the mangled wreck? Why should the police/paramedics/fire brigade have to view someone's face worn through to the skull as it's scraped down the tarmac?
I remember one particular 'accident' that I had to attend...the guy WAS wearing a crash helmet (well...a pilots helmet!) and he hit the deck at about 500 kts. The plane was scattered over an area of approx 4 sq Km...and so was the pilot.
I did not ASK to be sent to the crash site, I went because it was PART OF THE JOB THAT I DECIDED I WANTED TO DO!
If police/paramedics/fire brigade don't want to see that sort of stuff, they can always find another job! (Better not be a bus/coach driver...you see some pretty gruesome wrecks on the motorways!)
The point I was trying to make is simply that this government is trying to control every aspect of our lives, and doing it's damned best to take away any FREEDOM of choice that we may have.
If you are happy living in the sort of dictatorship where you don't even have the choice what job you do, just carry on letting the government decide what is best for you.
what's wrong with farting???
I thought you was a chain smoker chris!
It is a good thing, good ridens. Amount of times I have come home stinking of smoke, yuk. Next step, ban smoking all together!
I keep seeing the argument that non-smokers had the choice to go to a smoke-free restaurant. That, imho, is a stupid stupid argument. A restaurant and a pub are two totally different animals. Many smokers seem to think of this as such that they have lost their right to smoke. They haven't, they have been disbled the ablility to force their smoke on others. You can go outside for a butt. Why is that such a hardship?
As for Tristan's comment about a possible free smoking license, that would not work. If it were the case every single pub would get the license because there would be more business. Even it were not free they'd still all have it. That is also the reason there is virtually no smoke-free pubs without this smoking ban.
In Ontario, they've gone further than to say 'you can't smoke inside.' You also can't smoke within a certain distance of the main entrance (10 feet I think?), you can't smoke under any overhang off of a building (awnings included), and you can't smoke under a patio umbrella if it is touching another patio umbrella, the building or a building overhang.
Point remains; every single pub I know of has an outdoor patio area where you can smoke which is easily accessable. You can still drink out there (Getting service out there is hit or miss, though). I'm personally in favour of the ban; I was too young to go to pubs before the ban was issued so I don't know how bad they were, but I'd been in several places which were smoking establishments and they were quite bad. I'd imagine pubs would be much worse, especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
You haven't lost the liberty to smoke at a pub, you still have it, the door is close by and you can re-enter whenever you like. I've gained the liberty to not have to injest pounds of someone elses cancer to enjoy a beer with some friends, I'm thankful for that.
[EDIT] Oh yes, our ban has been in place for some time now. 4 or 5 years maybe? I forget now. I have to say I love going to pubs where I can taste the beer and the food instead of the tobacco in the air.
As for Tristan's comment about a possible free smoking license, that would not work. If it were the case every single pub would get the license because there would be more business. Even it were not free they'd still all have it. That is also the reason there is virtually no smoke-free pubs without this smoking ban.
In Ontario, they've gone further than to say 'you can't smoke inside.' You also can't smoke within a certain distance of the main entrance (10 feet I think?), you can't smoke under any overhang off of a building (awnings included), and you can't smoke under a patio umbrella if it is touching another patio umbrella, the building or a building overhang.
Point remains; every single pub I know of has an outdoor patio area where you can smoke which is easily accessable. You can still drink out there (Getting service out there is hit or miss, though). I'm personally in favour of the ban; I was too young to go to pubs before the ban was issued so I don't know how bad they were, but I'd been in several places which were smoking establishments and they were quite bad. I'd imagine pubs would be much worse, especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
You haven't lost the liberty to smoke at a pub, you still have it, the door is close by and you can re-enter whenever you like. I've gained the liberty to not have to injest pounds of someone elses cancer to enjoy a beer with some friends, I'm thankful for that.
[EDIT] Oh yes, our ban has been in place for some time now. 4 or 5 years maybe? I forget now. I have to say I love going to pubs where I can taste the beer and the food instead of the tobacco in the air.
The point was that we've had smoke-free restaurants for years without needing to legislate. Therefore, if there was a market for smoke-free pubs then we'd already have smoke-free pubs without needing patronising legislation to bring it about.
I think this is the whole point, and why alot of people are against this ban. Smoking was starting to become socially unacceptable, and within 5 years would proberly have been stopped. But the govement had to shove its head in. And from smokers I've talked to (and I am one my self) its made them more determined to smoke. Its a bit hard to understand if you're from another country I feel, but over the past decade the govement has been imposing its self more and more on the population of britian, and its just making the UK more annoying/depressing/expensive to live in.
They don't sort out the problems, they just roll out another "scheme" which is media friendly but accomplishs feck all. The uk has something like 60-70% of all the cctv cameras installed in europe, 1 camera to every 14 people (proberly more now, since that stat is from 5 years ago), to keep down crime but still crime is on the up, and serious crime like gun violence is becoming a serious problem. No one is interested in fixing the major problems with british society, they just want to have another 4 years in power so they can milk more money from the tax fund into thier own pockets (and that of "big buisness" ie the people who'll give them a nice wage and pension when they leave politics).
Oh well, I'll keep smoking, if I want to get my taxes worth from the govement its gonna have to be through the NHS because they ain't giving value for money in any other department (well the nhs isn't value for money, since it sucks bad).
One last thing, a 20 deck of ciggies cost £5.50 ish, with no tax they'd cost £1.10, thats why they haven't out right banned smoking.
So whos ready to start the revolution? its only a matter of time...
Like I said they're two different animals. Restaurants are generally targetted at families (including children and infants) who wish to dine somewhere clean and healthy. Pubs are targetted at the adult populus; smokers or not. The problem arises when the non-smokers can't enjoy themselves because they get nauseous from walking in the door. I understand your point about the government imposing themselves on every aspect of your life as much as I can as an outsider (I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where our gov't doesn't harrass us about every little detail... at least not directly), but this is something that will be better for everyone in the long run. No one is telling you that you can't smoke, they're just telling you that you can't smoke inside. You can't in an office building, movie theatre, restaurant, and so on. With a pub you have to waltz a few feet to the door (lets face it, most pubs are not very large :P) to have a butt then waltz back in. Who knows, that extra 20 feet of excercise might put a few hours back of the day you just took off your life from having that smoke :P
I can totally see your side of the argument, I really can, but any public place should be smoke free for the better of everyone, not smoke-pro for the 'benefit' of some.
No, sorry - I can't think of a restaurant in York that allowed smoking before the ban, I don't think there is one. None of the restaurants in York are targetted at families - they're all cosy little places for couples or pre/post-theatre drinks.
Plus buildings with air conditioning are more likely to kill you than smokey pubs. At least there's a proven link between a/c and legionaires disease.. unlike the lack of connection betweem cancer and passive smoking.. 
the US smoking ban is going great, resturants are cleaner, you dont cough all the time when you are sitting by someone. Personally its one of the best things thats happened..
Smoking Ban - England
(78 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG