BIG-BAD-TONE
Ashley Tait
...win or lose have a booze
Posts: 1,893
|
Post by BIG-BAD-TONE on Jun 24, 2011 18:00:00 GMT
I was sat outside a pub having a pint in the sunshine when i lit a fag up some snotty woman on the next table began to cough and wave her hand in front of her nose She gave me a look as if i had just poo poo in her mouth and i could not help but think where the feck she was when i was outside smoking in the fecking cold and rain and snow all winter These are the people that didn't want smoking in the pubs now its sunny they dont like it outside either for fudges sake language
|
|
Doughnut
Forum Admin
mmmmmm ... Doughnuts
Posts: 5,072
|
Post by Doughnut on Jun 24, 2011 18:32:36 GMT
Picture the scene, some innocent woman is sat outside the pub enjoying the sun when some bloke on the table next to her decides to pollute the air she's breathing. The polluted air makes her cough and she waves her hand in front of her face to try and get a breath of clean air. For some reason the bloke at the next table then thinks he's the one that deserves to take offence. The cheek of it.
|
|
BIG-BAD-TONE
Ashley Tait
...win or lose have a booze
Posts: 1,893
|
Post by BIG-BAD-TONE on Jun 24, 2011 19:45:24 GMT
By the way forgot to mention this was in the area outside that was a designated smoking area during the winter months
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Jun 24, 2011 21:02:56 GMT
Hey - smokers want to poison themselves... fair enough, go ahead, it's their lungs. Just don't expect the rest of us to calmly accept being poisoned at second hand as well. I for one absolutely hate (for example) walking through the town centre and suddenly passing through & breathing in someone's cloud of smoke. Invisible, unavoidable, revolting.
If smokers don't want complaints, they shouldn't inflict their smoke on others - simple as.
|
|
Ghost
Matt Myers
Posts: 1,698
|
Post by Ghost on Jun 24, 2011 21:59:30 GMT
You can have no complaints. Why would anyone want to breathe in your god awful poison? Just because your happy to kill yourself that's your decision, I choose not to smoke, so don't make the decision for me.
|
|
|
Post by sanjosefan on Jun 24, 2011 23:51:47 GMT
As a smoker it really widdles me off in the summer when people who are outside in the smoking area complain about the smell of smoke you don't like it go inside where the smokers cannot get you. Simple you don't like the smoke fudge off then
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Jun 25, 2011 5:02:27 GMT
As a smoker it really widdles me off in the summer when people who are outside in the smoking area complain about the smell of smoke you don't like it go inside where the smokers cannot get you. Simple you don't like the smoke cluck off then What - so non-smokers aren't allowed to enjoy fresh air as well? It's simple... smokers create the smoke, it's their responsibility. Everyone else should not have to be forced to put up with it.
|
|
Pies
Forum Moderator
Reluctant Chief of ITK
Posts: 4,879
|
Post by Pies on Jun 25, 2011 6:52:49 GMT
Personally, if I go to smoke, I do I try to avoid anywhere where people could be eating food or where kids could be. Sometimes this isn't possible i.e. if I'm in a beer garden but it's my dirty habit (and I regret the day I started smoking) and I feel I have to take responsibilty for that and make it easier for people around me.
Best thing to do is smoke at home in the back garden - no one can moan at ya then!
|
|
|
Post by PuckPlz on Jun 25, 2011 6:55:58 GMT
If it was in a designated smoking area then fair enough, she can't complain, just move away from the smoking area. If it isn't a clearly signposted designated area then take it up with management to make it signposted to avoid future problems. And no I'm not a smoker.
|
|
|
Post by sanjosefan on Jun 25, 2011 9:17:25 GMT
As a smoker it really widdles me off in the summer when people who are outside in the smoking area complain about the smell of smoke you don't like it go inside where the smokers cannot get you. Simple you don't like the smoke cluck off then What - so non-smokers aren't allowed to enjoy fresh air as well? It's simple... smokers create the smoke, it's their responsibility. Everyone else should not have to be forced to put up with it. But the smokers, were told to smoke outside they do. You seem to want a create an entire non smoking area. That would kill the pub trade off.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Jun 25, 2011 9:33:51 GMT
Personally, if I go to smoke, I do I try to avoid anywhere where people could be eating food or where kids could be. Sometimes this isn't possible i.e. if I'm in a beer garden but it's my dirty habit (and I regret the day I started smoking) and I feel I have to take responsibilty for that and make it easier for people around me. Best thing to do is smoke at home in the back garden - no one can moan at ya then! Now that's more of a responsible attitude... But the smokers, were told to smoke outside they do. You seem to want a create an entire non smoking area. That would kill the pub trade off. Would it? Funny... that's what everyone kept bleating when the idea of banning smoking inside was brought up - hasn't happened. Look - it's quite simple. Smokers create their smoke, so they should be responsible for it. What's the problem with that? If they cannot or will not control their emissions, then they should only be allowed to produce them where it will not affect those who haven't chosen to suffer them. What could possibly be more fair and equitable than that? The truth is, smokers have had the balance tipped in their favour for far too long (ever since smoking started, basically) and only now is a bit of parity and fairness starting to be restored... starting - as in, not all the way there yet.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Jun 25, 2011 12:35:52 GMT
The sooner they ban smoking in any public place the better.
Disgusting habit that costs the tax pay a ridiculous amount of money each year.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,423
|
Post by Yotes on Jun 25, 2011 12:45:53 GMT
Look - it's quite simple. Smokers create their smoke, so they should be responsible for it. What's the problem with that? If they cannot or will not control their emissions, then they should only be allowed to produce them where it will not affect those who haven't chosen to suffer them. What could possibly be more fair and equitable than that? Whilst I think that smoking is immeasurably stupid (apologies to the smokers on here), you could say the exact same thing about motorists Shaggy, with reference to pedestrians. Smokers are told to go outside, so if non-smokers are out there they should be aware that there could be smoke present. Saying that, smokers shouldn't be all precious about it when smoke makes a non-smoker start coughing, it's hardly an unusual reaction.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Jun 25, 2011 16:35:56 GMT
Look - it's quite simple. Smokers create their smoke, so they should be responsible for it. What's the problem with that? If they cannot or will not control their emissions, then they should only be allowed to produce them where it will not affect those who haven't chosen to suffer them. What could possibly be more fair and equitable than that? Whilst I think that smoking is immeasurably stupid (apologies to the smokers on here), you could say the exact same thing about motorists Shaggy, with reference to pedestrians. Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant... just another way for smokers to avoid the issue. Whilst the internal combustion engine is a polluter - and I for one wish that we could have something better - at least it's something useful. Not the noxious byproduct of a carcinogenic habit to which some people foolishly and deliberately addict themselves just to get a bit of a 'high'. Plus you are rarely forced to be as close to the exhaust pipe of an engine as you often are to the cigarette of some inconsiderate smoker. No apologies from me - smoking is stupid. And it's not as if anyone these days isn't completely aware of what it entails. Hey, smokers - you want to kill yourselves, fine by me. Go ahead - think of it as evolution in action. Just don't try to take me with you. Why should we have to be aware of that? As in... why should we have to put up with it? Not just with having to breathe the damned stuff (and all the effects of second-hand smoking) but also the smell. Coughing's the least of it. Tell you what... the smell of smoke makes me feel sick. If I have to put up with being covered by someone's cigarette smoke, they can put up with being covered by my stomach acids. Deal?
|
|
Pies
Forum Moderator
Reluctant Chief of ITK
Posts: 4,879
|
Post by Pies on Jun 25, 2011 16:51:15 GMT
I think we need to confirm a few things. IF someone goes into a smoking designated area then they do that knowing theres going to be smoke there - many pubs have shelters or places to stand to smoke then I don't have sympathy as it is a clearly designated area.
If we're talking about the general outside then thats a different matter entirely.
|
|
|
Post by pantherdman on Jun 26, 2011 15:19:10 GMT
What next? banning alcohol in pubs?
|
|
LUFC
Ashley Tait
Game On!
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by LUFC on Jun 26, 2011 17:08:00 GMT
What next? banning alcohol in pubs? Alcohol doesn't emit a smoke or something toxic directly at or around those who are in your vicinity. Smoking however does. Yes if you are referring to the tax costs involved in healthcare, policing and so forth, well unlike Tobacco taxes, alcohol does pay it's way and weight when it comes to covering these. It costs 3billion a year for cleaning up after Achohol related incidents and treatments. The country take 13.9billion a year in taxes from the achohol industry. Thats not including import taxes etc. Cigarettes bring in 9billion, but cost the NHS 5billion for cancers and a further 5 for heard disease and respiratory diseases. Thus we're at the moment losing 1billion a year on this. These figures are a year old and cigarrettes have increased in pricing again due to tax increases. But it's still virtually break even. all this info is available on ihs.gov.uk The smoking ban actually clearly states that it's not forcing smokers to go outside, but it's forcing them into designated areas. Thus if there is someone who is outside enjoying a drink in a general area and a smoker starts to smoke near them. They are well within the rights of the law to ask them to stop. This is fair in my eyes. Designated area for those who want to smoke, elsewhere those who don't want to smoke (the majority of the population) can do so without issue.
|
|
|
Post by Number 9.1 on Jun 27, 2011 13:20:04 GMT
People coughing around smokers in the open air are invariably engaging in passive-aggressive histrionics - please don't seriously try to tell me otherwise.
The parallel with vehicle emissions is entirely valid: driving a car is an envionmentally damaging lifestyle choice which people become 'addicted' to for the sake of their own personal convenience.
While there are no direct medical relationships between drinkers and the people around them, alcohol does make plenty of people violent, obnoxious or just a plain social nuisance of a kind that spoils many more peoples' leisure time than an occasional, heavily-dilluted half-whiff of tobacco smoke.
Not all cases of diseases which are described broadly as 'smoking related' are actually caused by smoking - there are numerous ways to contract cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses.
The reason petrol, alcohol and cigarettes are specific, easy targets for heavy taxation is because consumption is (in broad terms) optional and penalties are politically justifiable because of the political will to make people use less on health/environmental grounds. If government wasn't dependent on the income (i.e. up on the deal) then, if we're to believe what they say about discouraging usage, they'd impose much stricter limitations.
In short, people need someone to look down on and blame for the petty miseries which characterise their own lives and, for people who choose not to smoke, a socially demonised group like smokers are there for the taking.
Or, to quote the sage Bill Hicks: "I'd quit smoking if I didn't think I'd become one of you."
|
|
BIG-BAD-TONE
Ashley Tait
...win or lose have a booze
Posts: 1,893
|
Post by BIG-BAD-TONE on Jun 27, 2011 18:04:33 GMT
The sooner they ban smoking in any public place the better. Disgusting habit that costs the tax pay a ridiculous amount of money each year. More money is generated by tax on cigarettes than is spent on the treatment of smokers so i don't buy that for one moment
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Jun 27, 2011 18:11:16 GMT
You can have no complaints. Why would anyone want to breathe in your god awful poison? Just because your happy to kill yourself that's your decision, I choose not to smoke, so don't make the decision for me. Quite. The indignance of smokers who claim they're being hard done to in this instance is something i've got no time for. You're breathing toxic and foul-smelling smoke into people's faces and get annoyed when they don't like it? More money is generated by tax on cigarettes than is spent on the treatment of smokers so i don't buy that for one moment It's sad that that's the only argument in it's favour.
|
|
|
Post by sanjosefan on Jun 27, 2011 19:22:28 GMT
However one argument that may possibly be made, if you are on a night out and a stranger comes up to you, and is showing signs of challenging behavior due to that persons alcohol intake, should their not be a non alcohol area in venues where people who choose not to drink nor be in an environment where people who drink and get drunk. I'd would say that many people have a nights out ruined by strangers coming up to them being drunk.
End of the day, they're a smoking area's and if you are a non smoker and don't want to smell of smoke don't go to a smoking area.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Jun 27, 2011 21:13:23 GMT
The sooner they ban smoking in any public place the better. Disgusting habit that costs the tax pay a ridiculous amount of money each year. More money is generated by tax on cigarettes than is spent on the treatment of smokers so i don't buy that for one moment Depends on what stats you look at... I've seen both sides quote the stats to 'prove' that the financials support their argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics... to be honest, I don't think anybody truly knows.
|
|
Shaggy
Forum Moderator
Am I a cynical idealist or an idealistic cynic?
Posts: 10,995
|
Post by Shaggy on Jun 27, 2011 21:35:42 GMT
You have come out with a complete load of drivel, Number 9.1... People coughing around smokers in the open air are invariably engaging in passive-aggressive histrionics - please don't seriously try to tell me otherwise. Tough - I'm telling you otherwise. Walking along, minding one's own business... taking a breath and suddenly finding that you've walked into some inconsiderate smoker's noxious cloud. What - do you think that just because it's in the open air it dissipates without trace instantly? Dear oh dear... Personally, I say go with the 'aggressive-aggressive' response... smoking makes many people (myself included) nauseous. Fine - so puke on the inconsiderate gits. Turn-about's fair play... Fixed for you. Even if most car journeys were just as you describe (and they aren't, not by a long chalk) what about vans, lorries, buses etc? Or do you intend to cut them out and see our society grind to a complete halt? Think it through, for pity's sake... Actually, no - alcohol makes a relatively small number of people violent etc... hell, I'm not a big drinker most of the time - but I've been hammered on several occasions and never once caused trouble. Same with just about everyone I know. Compare and contrast with the indisputable fact that every single exhalation of cigarette smoke contributes to a stinking carcinogenic miasma around smokers, where the only possible way to avoid such is to not be in the location at all. Great... so it's either get driven away from places or get poisoned. What a choice. True. And your point is...? It is a known fact that smoking can and does cause an enormous amount of such. You're not getting anywhere with this, you know... Petrol consumption is, for the most part, certainly NOT optional. Not without serious lifestyle/employment changes for many, many people. Alcohol is, I agree, most certainly an optional expense. Cigarettes? - well, depends on whether you've got the willpower to overcome the addicton, doesn't it? As for the rest of your statement there... yes, I agree. The Govt certainly could discourage consumption much more, but choose not to do so on financial grounds. Which is, for the purposes of this debate, completely irrelevant. Bill Hicks can kiss my backside. Wow, smokers are all of a sudden a "socially demonised group" are they? Bit of a contrast to how it's always been beforehand... where the only 'right' answer to the question "do you mind if I smoke?" was "of course not!" - and anything else usually met with anything from moans to outright hostility. The sheer historical arrogance of smokers is staggering... all their wittering on about "smokers' rights" etc. Well - what about the rights of the rest of us not to have to breathe in or smell of the bloody stuff, just because some inconsiderate tobacco-head has to get his or her 'fix'? You know what smokers are? - junkies. Drug addicts. Helplessly enslaved by a noxious weed - knowingly enslaved, to boot - and it's an addiction that they impose on the rest of us. You want "socially demonised"? - hell, you haven't even scratched the potential surface. As far as I'm concerned, smokers can kill themselves if they want... poison themselves, shortern their lives, whatever. As long as it's only themselves that are directly affected. Their smoke, their responsibility. And if they are unable or unwilling to control that smoke... then they shouldn't be allowed to impose it on the rest of us. Let them indulge their - what did you call it? - "environmentally damaging lifestyle choice" - where it won't help to kill off the rest of us. Filthy habit.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Jun 28, 2011 6:28:49 GMT
The sooner they ban smoking in any public place the better. Disgusting habit that costs the tax pay a ridiculous amount of money each year. More money is generated by tax on cigarettes than is spent on the treatment of smokers so i don't buy that for one moment The cost of passive smoking alone was estimated by the Royal College of Physicians at £23.3 million. Thats not included in the figures that Pantherdman already quote above. A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 suggests that the gap is £2.8 billion a year higher than the revenue smoking brings in.
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Jun 28, 2011 7:34:18 GMT
You have come out with a complete load of drivel, Number 9.1... People coughing around smokers in the open air are invariably engaging in passive-aggressive histrionics - please don't seriously try to tell me otherwise. Tough - I'm telling you otherwise. Walking along, minding one's own business... taking a breath and suddenly finding that you've walked into some inconsiderate smoker's noxious cloud. What - do you think that just because it's in the open air it dissipates without trace instantly? Dear oh dear... Personally, I say go with the 'aggressive-aggressive' response... smoking makes many people (myself included) nauseous. Fine - so puke on the inconsiderate gits. Turn-about's fair play... Fixed for you. Even if most car journeys were just as you describe (and they aren't, not by a long chalk) what about vans, lorries, buses etc? Or do you intend to cut them out and see our society grind to a complete halt? Think it through, for pity's sake... Actually, no - alcohol makes a relatively small number of people violent etc... hell, I'm not a big drinker most of the time - but I've been hammered on several occasions and never once caused trouble. Same with just about everyone I know. Compare and contrast with the indisputable fact that every single exhalation of cigarette smoke contributes to a stinking carcinogenic miasma around smokers, where the only possible way to avoid such is to not be in the location at all. Great... so it's either get driven away from places or get poisoned. What a choice. True. And your point is...? It is a known fact that smoking can and does cause an enormous amount of such. You're not getting anywhere with this, you know... Petrol consumption is, for the most part, certainly NOT optional. Not without serious lifestyle/employment changes for many, many people. Alcohol is, I agree, most certainly an optional expense. Cigarettes? - well, depends on whether you've got the willpower to overcome the addicton, doesn't it? As for the rest of your statement there... yes, I agree. The Govt certainly could discourage consumption much more, but choose not to do so on financial grounds. Which is, for the purposes of this debate, completely irrelevant. Bill Hicks can kiss my backside. Wow, smokers are all of a sudden a "socially demonised group" are they? Bit of a contrast to how it's always been beforehand... where the only 'right' answer to the question "do you mind if I smoke?" was "of course not!" - and anything else usually met with anything from moans to outright hostility. The sheer historical arrogance of smokers is staggering... all their wittering on about "smokers' rights" etc. Well - what about the rights of the rest of us not to have to breathe in or smell of the bloody stuff, just because some inconsiderate tobacco-head has to get his or her 'fix'? You know what smokers are? - junkies. Drug addicts. Helplessly enslaved by a noxious weed - knowingly enslaved, to boot - and it's an addiction that they impose on the rest of us. You want "socially demonised"? - hell, you haven't even scratched the potential surface. As far as I'm concerned, smokers can kill themselves if they want... poison themselves, shortern their lives, whatever. As long as it's only themselves that are directly affected. Their smoke, their responsibility. And if they are unable or unwilling to control that smoke... then they shouldn't be allowed to impose it on the rest of us. Let them indulge their - what did you call it? - "environmentally damaging lifestyle choice" - where it won't help to kill off the rest of us. Filthy habit. Don't sit on the fence Shaggy - tell us what you really think. (ps. I'm with you on this one.)
|
|