smoking

[Melusine]

Originally posted by LennonCook: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Nope, it's not indoor public places only, i'm not allowed to smoke on the trainplatforms anymore either, and that's out in the open air. Well, there's a small piece where the smokers can flock together, but i refuse to go stand there.

Is this a nation-wide thing, or only on the two or three platforms that you go to regularly? It could quite easily be the inititive of the train companies more than a law that's been passed. But the one small place to smoke sounds rather counter-intuitive to me... while it can be ensured that the smokers will only smoke there, how can they hope to keep all of the smoke there? [/QUOTE]You can assume Johnny knows what he's talking about Lennon. It IS a nationwide thing, for one because all our stations are run by the same company.

Johnny, I think it's debatable whether stations are indoor or outdoor. Of course smaller ones are usually in the open air, but one like Amsterdam Central station is arguably closed - it does open into the air at both ends, but the platforms and the hallways are quite sheltered and count as indoors in my book. And while I agree it's a border case, I think railway platforms are the only more-or-less outdoorsy place where I like to see smoking banned - you've no idea how much smoke I breathed in from fellow passengers while waiting for trains.

Oh and to answer Lennon's last question, I think you are imagining smaller stations and platforms than they actually are. Believe me, there is a world of difference if people smoke in one place only. The platforms are huge and if someone is smoking at one end, there's no way even I (with my hypersensitivity to smoke [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) would notice. So concentrating the smokers in a small area does help.

[ 11-29-2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Melusine: You can assume Johnny knows what he's talking about Lennon.

Actually, I did. [img]smile.gif[/img] I apologise if it didn't sound that way.

It IS a nationwide thing, for one because all our stations are run by the same company.

Knowing this, I'll clarify my question a bit. [img]smile.gif[/img] Is it the result of government action, or is it a decision made by the company?

I think you are imagining smaller stations and platforms than they actually are.

Considering that I live in basically the middle of nowhere (well, OK, it's not Oodnadatta...), that probably isn't hard. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

From numerous joke threads/emails/sites: having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

Didn't Voltaire point out that a witty saying is not necessarily wise or insightful?

Funny how people are prevented from smoking in any public place but power plants are still allowed permits to pollute.

Smoking bans are right up there with taxes, wars, and seatbelt laws on my list of "great excuses to firebomb government buildings." If one has the proclivity, of course. Which, none should. Never. Not ever.

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Didn't Voltaire point out that a witty saying is not necessarily wise or insightful?

The keyword being "necesarily". Besides, it seemed to fit well at the time (and still does) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Funny how people are prevented from smoking in any public place but power plants are still allowed permits to pollute.

I'm 99% sure that, down here atleast, a power plant can't be too close to a city, for the same reason as the smoking bans. Working conditions can convince governments of things sometimes... especially when they have to work. Oh, wait. Anyway, I wouldn't want to work or eat in a restaurant full of smokers, and nor would I want to work or eat in a restaurant next door to a power plant. Which is why I support both restrictions. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Smoking bans are right up there with taxes, wars, and seatbelt laws on my list of "great excuses to firebomb government buildings." If one has the proclivity, of course. Which, none should. Never. Not ever.

But wouldn't that give the politicians an excuse to say "this country is evil, let's declare war on them!"? And then there'd be even more taxes to fund the war, and to rebuild what was firebombed...

[johnny]

Mel, even though the platforms are sheltered, it's still in the open. If it's windy weather, and you're standing on a platform waiting for the train, you'll know what i mean. Those roofs don't cover all of the platforms either (haven't been on Amsterdam CS in a while, but in Utrecht there are still open spots, so you can even get wet if it rains), and frankly, i think it's a little hypocrite. Sure, people don't have to inhale my smoke anymore, now they only have to worry about the crap floating around coming from the trains, citybusses, cabs, and supplytrucks that keep coming and going 24/7. Quite an improvement i must say.

[wellard]

LOL [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Notes that the only person who advertises smoking on Ironworks (by way of his signature) is also the most opinionated against smoking in public buildings [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img]

Can someone please help me spell Hypocrite [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[Marty4]

No one has yet to talk about how smoking companies target teenagers. As an athsmatic, I find it very hard to breathe near smokers, no matter where they blow the smoke. However, I am tolerant of their right to make that choice.

If you decide after you can legally smoke that you want to live life as a smoker, then I respect your opinion. However, if you are a person who was pressured into smoking and have gotten addicted and say that you can't quit, then it means that you aren't taking advantage of the numerous medicines and programs to help them quit.

No offense meant to any who are trying.

[Stormymystic]

Originally posted by Marty4: No one has yet to talk about how smoking companies target teenagers. As an athsmatic, I find it very hard to breathe near smokers, no matter where they blow the smoke. However, I am tolerant of their right to make that choice. If you decide after you can legally smoke that you want to live life as a smoker, then I respect your opinion. However, if you are a person who was pressured into smoking and have gotten addicted and say that you can't quit, then it means that you aren't taking advantage of the numerous medicines and programs to help them quit. No offense meant to any who are trying.

not going to try and start a argument about money, becaus ei know in the long run, if you did not spend money on smokes and blah blah blah. but have you seen the price of these "meds" that you speak of? to get the first "step" of a quit smoking over the counter product, it cost $50 for one step! and there are alot of products that require step down programs. to me yeah that is wise, step down from the addiction, but still it cost so much for a one week use...

[wellard]

Answer = Slap a higher tax on cigs to subsidize products to help people quit.... simple

[Landon Contressior]

the Onl thing a Higher tax is going to do is make us smokers angery, and then you will hear lots of comlaining, people get hurt, and tis all a big mess, how about we lower the tax just a bit. [img]smile.gif[/img]