The idea that non-smoking pubs will attract more customers is just wishful thinking. A lot of fairly big towns and cities are completely without non-smoking pubs. In those towns, if one pub introduced a no smoking policy it would have a monopoly on the 'smoke-free' market. To say that an all out ban will result in more customers, when even one non-smoking pub is unsustainable is absurd.

Great, another smoking ban thread. Ready to Rumble!

[ 11-26-2004, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

did u know u spend up to 16,000 a year on cigarettes? if there is a population of 5 and a half billion thats like bying a space ship and living on the moon with 100 butlers and a 4 story home. its really a waste of money.

16000 of what a year?

Class, the word we are going to learn today is -- T.O.L.E.R.A.N.T

Definition
tolerance (ABILITY TO BEAR)
noun [U]
1 the ability to bear something unpleasant or annoying, or to continue existing despite disadvantageous conditions:
My tolerance of heat is considerably greater after having lived in the Far East for a couple of years.

2 SPECIALIZED an animal's or plant's ability not to be harmed by a drug or poison over a long period of time:
a greater tolerance of/to the drug

tolerant
adjective
I think men are less tolerant of stress than women.
SPECIALIZED Compared to other plants, rye is more tolerant of drought.

tolerate
verb [T]
to bear something unpleasant or annoying, or to continue existing despite disadvantageous conditions:
It seems these ants can tolerate temperatures which would kill other species.

for more information, click here

Yes, smoking is bad. Yes, some smokers are very rude. But there are others too. Smokers do have their rights too...

Yes, I am a smoker.

[ 11-26-2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

i realise paladin that smokers have a right to smoke, but...do they really need to smoke where i am eating? the smoke gets into my own system while i am trying to eat and it can make me sick. i have had to fight morning sickness numerous time because of cigarette smoke.

also...most here know i attend our local food bank once a month. is tand in line with other people whoa re as broke as we are. or are they? at least 1/2 of the young adults (18-30) standing in line there are smoking. how can one afford cigarettes but not food? why are they there knowing full well their money could be better spent. my mom used to spend $30 a week on cigarettes for herself alone. even if these people are only spending half of that (doubtful since they are not rolled cigs which are much much cheaper) they could be buying food for themselves with that money. and yeh they may still need the foodbank after that, but...they would need it less and be better off all around nad possibly even be able to get off assitance altogether someday. save money, etc. no these people demand their right to smoke,a dn smoke in line outside the food bank as i hold my children and try my best not to throw up because they can't bother to go more than 5 feet away fromt he line.

Is smoking a right? Maybe it is. But if you live in a modern welfare state, which most of us do - Australia, Canada, USA, east and western Europe, etc. - then we are ALL paying for your deteriorating health and the astronomical health care costs that must be absorbed by the system (and therefore the taxpayers!). One US (CDC) study showed that smokers cost the healthcare system nearly $200,000 more over the span of their life than non-smokers.

Yes, smokers have the right to smoke. But only if they do not infringe on others' right to not be affected by it. And that includes financially, doesn't it?

(PS no offence intended! I understand - life is one big nic-fit for me as I try to not smoke!)

As far as the habit of smoking is concerned, it is a matter of choice. Some people choose to starve so that they could smoke more, but of course this does not apply to all people. The same goes for booze.

Some establishment do have smoking zone. Maybe they shouldn't do that but there are many smokers as non-smokers out there too, any good businessman would try to accomodate for both, even though the solution might not be practical or elegant.

I am a smoker and yet I refrain from smoking in front of my children. When I go to any eating establishment, I always choose the non-smoking section, unless when I am not with my children.

When I am with my children and family, I would always go for the table which is farest from the smoking section as possible. I tend to avoid restaurant that do not enforce strict smoking control, even the food might have been the "best in town".

For the issue of bar/pub, sorry... that's too bad. This is the place that people come to relax and enjoy. There are way too many drinkers (that smoke too) to enforce smoking control at all.

Lastly, people who do not respect others by smoking in public places (for example, mall and etc) are usually the same type of irresponsible people who would break any rules which pose inconvenience to them. If there is a "no drinking zone", you will notice that these are the same people who would break that rule too. As far as I am concerned, as a smoker, I always obey the rules.

Before we go any further, car costs more polution and global warming than cigarette smokes. Shouldn't we ban cars instead? How about fart? Shouldn't farting be blamed for "air polution" as well?

The problem with some of these stuff is that:
a. we need it (car).
b. we can't help it (fart).

so, people usually pick on something that they do need or they don't have the habit of doing.

Lastly, I DO agree on smoking control. But please do not mistake smokers as "scum of the earth". Without the countless smoking GIs, most of you would probably be speaking german or japanese.

The "perfect" leader that doesn't not smoke or drink turn out to the Aldolf Hitler. I don't know about you, but I would rather go for a leader that has some "character flaw/weakness" than a seemingly "perfect" person.

[ 11-26-2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

*sighs*
first things first...just because <u>you</u> do not approve of smoking, does not give you the right to ban it because others enjoy it. granted, those of us who do smoke should take into consideration of how others feel about it. but that still does not give anyone the right to say we can not smoke in public. if we chose to smoke after eating a meal, that is our choice. I think there should be two different restaurants if this is how it is going to be, one for smokers and one for non smokers, so if you have a problem with smoking, go to the other one, we should not have to feel like we are evil because we smoke.
Second thing. here in America, if they "ban" smoking, that is taking away more of our supposed freedom, it is our bodies, if we want to smoke let us, do not tell us that because we are old enough to make our own decisions, and decide to smoke, we are killing our selves and you are not going to let us do that. what about our rights? as I stated above, I do take into consideration around people who do not smoke, and if I want a cig, I go to my car, out of politeness, unless there is a specific smoking area away from non smokers.

It would be bad indeed to label smokers as "scum" or any other epitaph. People are people, foibles and all. Those who don't smoke do other things I'm sure...

However (as an aside)-

Many of us DO speak German and Japanese.

And I assume that if we were eliminating smoking GI's then we'd be eliminating smoking German and Japanese soldiers and sailors as well, so on balance of probability, the outcome of WW II would have been the same.