smoking

[johnny]

I know exactly what it costs me per year. I smoke three packs a week, which is roughly 15 €, which is, give and take a little, 60 € per month, x 12, makes 720 € per year. That's not all that much, i can't even go to the Costa's with that amount of money.

[Intrepid]

Originally posted by Beaumanoir: quote: Originally posted by Intrepid: quote: Originally posted by Beaumanoir: quote: Originally posted by burnzey boi: 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.

That's about £6,500 a year on cigs. That's approxamatly £18 a day on cigarettes.

Which, I can safely say is b*******. [/QUOTE]i know!
that's just insane!

burnzey, i forgot to add, not all of earth's population smoke, and those that do do not spend that much so that brings down that number further. [/QUOTE]I'm presuming he meant $16,000 austrailian dollars, i'm guessing because his location said Australia. So if my calculations are correct (Based on that one austrailian dollar is about 40.49 pence.)

Nobody spends £18 on smoking a day, unless they are either a chain toker or smoking cuban fatties. [/QUOTE]i know, i realise that
$16,000 AUD a year is still a huge ammount

[Beaumanoir]

You know why it's a huge amount??

Because it's not true!

Neerrrrrr [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Intrepid]

you make a good case

[Beaumanoir]

Cheers - It took me all day to come up with that

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by Intrepid: Yes but you can't attribute that to banned smoking, echonomic conditions have changed over time, arifairs have fallen, relative income has increased, and the world has genrally becme more globalised, bringing much more need for air travel.

Wellard's point, I believe, was not to say thaat this has happened because of the smoking bans, but rather that it has happened in spite of them. That is, people have not stopped flying on planes because they can't smoke on them. Rather, as you say, other factors have come into play (like they always do), and so there has been - in the long term - no loss of business because of banned smoking. A ban on smoking does not a bankruptcy make.

But why should i alter my spending patterns? isn't that the consumer's choice and right? what is the purpost to work if you are not permitted to spend money ernt in the way you wish. $16,000 is an unbelievably high ammount, that is multiple packs a day.

Noone will have to alter their spending patterns. The NSW ban, atleast, is for indoor public places. Others, such as the ones in the towns Beumanoir mentioned, are bans in all public places. Note that word "public". That means, you can smoke at home all you want. You just can't smoke where it will affect people in ways that noone can predict.

But the purpose of helthcare is to ensure the well being of society, to discriminate against specific people defeats the purpose, smokers pay for the system as much as other people, and they deserve equal rights.

Equal rights, yes. But why should anyone have the right to put other people's health at risk? There are other ways in which you can do this, yes. But they all tend to fall under banners of "assault" or "bodily harm" which, last I checked, were illegal.

But you're missing the point, even if it is bad for me it is my right to do so.

If it is bad for you, yes, it is your right to do so. If it is bad for other people, they have the right to not be at risk.

And why should smoking be banned in all pubs? it should be an optional thing,

Looking back on the thread, that question has already been answered:

Originally posted by Legolas: The ban on smoking is done neither to accomodate non-smokers nor to pester smokers. Their rights are hardly important in this as both choose to be where they are and do what they do (although the fact of the matter is that smokers do cause inconvenience to others, be it in a pub, at a busstop or anywhere else). Their wishes are not considered as they are not the reason for the regulations. Look to non-smoking signs for that. The reason for the ban is simply this; employees are currently being forced to work in cigarette smoke. This is affecting their health and in many places the amount of smoke leads to the ADI (acceptable daily intake) being exceeded. Plainly put, they're not good working conditions.

My emphasis.

why restrict freedom further? why take something else away.

Rights have to be protected. In doing this, other rights must be removed. I have the right to live, at the expense of your right to take my life. Demoncracy is about freedom, but some people's idea of freedom seems to be out. You aren't free to do whatever the hell you want: that would be anarchy. The fundamental idea of freedom is that everyone is free to do anything which does not impose on the freedoms of others. I have the right to own material possessions, to say of them "these are mine". Someone, then, does not have the right to take things that I have earned and called 'mine' unless I let them call it theirs. I have the right to vote for our government - I do not nhave the right to evict John Howard from Kiribilli House (as much as I would like to), because that would infringe on the rights of whichever misguided souls voted for him. Your right to smoke around me in public imposes on my right to be in a smoke-free environment. Your right to smoke at home infringes on nobody. As such, no government who knows what they're doing will try to ban the latter. The former, though, has to give way to democracy and freedom.

Maybe smokers like to smoke with their friends in a nice environment. All i'm saying is that perhaps some pubs should take the ban on, and some should remain smoking pubs.

That doesn't fix the problem of working conditions. Also, with the number nof people who are paranoid that such a restriction would loose them business, government action is the only thing which is likely to bring good working conditions about.

EDIT: minor typo with cascasding quote messing-upness...

[ 12-01-2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]

[johnny]

The ones that apply for a job in such a place could answer one simple question: do you have a problem with cigarette smoke ? If the answer is no, then he's fit for the job. If the answer is yes, he'd better look for something else.

[slicer15]

johnny, that was discussed earlier, in regards to pub-waiter applicants having to answer the exact same thing...

Originally posted by Aerich: quote: Originally posted by Landon Contressior: However, on to the smoking section non smoking section issue(workers health), i believe this problem could be remedied by simpley making that a question on the application. "do you mind working around smokers?" then it wouldn't be anyones fault except there own.

I just want to address this idea. I've said my piece already on the general issue, and I won't belabour it.

But in re: having a question as part of an application process, I think it is a bad idea in the sense that it will not get the result that seems to be the overall goal (improvement in working conditions). Most people who work in bars and the restaurant industry don't have an amazing range of options when it comes down to it. What you'd end up with is a substantial proportion of people who actually do mind or think it is harmful to their health actually saying that they don't mind, so that they will be considered for the job. Saying that it will be their own fault is a bit harsh, since economic pressures force many people to do things they don't want to do (like work, period [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

The whole point in having a ban in certain areas where smoking arguably affects working conditions is to better the working conditions for people who do not have the power, economic or otherwise, to demand and enforce a change themselves. I think some governments are also cognizant of the health risks and stress on the health system down the road. That's certainly the case in my country, where the majority of medical procedures and care are subsidized by the government.[/QUOTE]

[Dron_Cah]

I have heard this type of ban was in effect in the U.S. My professor told me it was Nationwide, but that's ridiculous! I know the ban can't be throughout the country, or, otherwise, many places just dont care, lol. Someone care to give me some info, to back me up?? Thanks, as I have to write a paper about it.

[johnny]

Hm, well...i haven't read the entire thread, but it doesn't change my view on the situation. Barowners should have the right to make their own rules within their own buildings, but enough of this now, this thread is becoming more ridiculous by the minute.