gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Jun 29, 2007 20:42:25 GMT -1
I'm not sure if you're trying to elaborate on my points and agree on them, because that's what you have done Maybe the transient smokers (like I have been) who only smoke on the occasional night down the pub but otherwise I wouldn't count on it The opinions that worry me are those that say people must give up, period as it's a 'filthy habit'. etc etc I don't have any problem with the practise being moved out of public buildings etc but it's a dangerous game once we start telling people what to do in their own home etc I also resent the widely held belief by a lot of the anti smoking lobby that all smokers are inconsiderate to others by definition. Not so. There's a grey line around the edge of any legislation, so it's difficult to know when it's going too far and when it's not. IMO people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their own home- smoke, Class C drugs, violent PC games, 'strange' porn etc, providing it doesn't harm anyone else who doesn't want to be. But in public, it should be the majority over the minority. More people don't smoke, so I think it's reasonable to suggest they shouldn't have to be subjected to it, especially since it's harmful. |
|
gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Jun 29, 2007 20:43:55 GMT -1
Ever been to Dublin? Edinburgh? It's de rigeur in both places and I did find it a bit odd but soon became accustomed to it I can honestly say it don't bother me in the slightest. It will initially feel weird walking into a smoke free pub! |
|
|
|
Post by weallloveleeds on Jun 29, 2007 20:51:00 GMT -1
I'm not sure if you're trying to elaborate on my points and agree on them, because that's what you have done There's a grey line around the edge of any legislation, so it's difficult to know when it's going too far and when it's not. IMO people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want in their own home- smoke, Class C drugs, violent PC games, 'strange' porn etc, providing it doesn't harm anyone else who doesn't want to be. But in public, it should be the majority over the minority. More people don't smoke, so I think it's reasonable to suggest they shouldn't have to be subjected to it, especially since it's harmful. I'm agreeing generally, but saying the public shouldn't have to have second-hand smoke imposed upon them. Sorry for the lack of clarity  |
|
gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Jun 29, 2007 20:54:25 GMT -1
No worries Steve, I said that in my first post earlier in the thread, just wanted to make sure you knew I had said that It is of course the over-riding factor in bringing this in and even as an ex smoker it's why I endorse the move It's obviously a highly contentious and emotive issue but I think I'll bow out of it now. At least everyone on the thread tonight has gone beyond regurgitating the 'It's a filthy habit blah blah blah' and tried to discuss it properly - not sure that everyone will be like that!  ;D I'm not sure if you're trying to elaborate on my points and agree on them, because that's what you have done I'm agreeing generally, but saying the public shouldn't have to have second-hand smoke imposed upon them. Sorry for the lack of clarity |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Jun 29, 2007 20:57:18 GMT -1
It's 6am Sunday apparently Ro Best make the most of it then tomorrow then ;D And after 15 months without (and after 20 a day for 25 odd years on will power alone) I've become a social smoker once again (now 40 odd a week). I can understand the non-smokers position and in work areas, restaurants, cinemas, public transport (where bans already work) I've not a problem. However, pubs (public houses) by legal definition are an extension of the landlords (house owner's) house. Surely therefore, if the landlord and landlady of a tenancy pub are both smokers - why is the govt. imposing bans on their and their customers habit? Especially as the Govt has re-iterated that the smoking ban does not extend to private homes. As an aside - cars generate more toxic fumes and chemicals in a year than a smoker does in 100 lifetimes. How's about we ban motor vehicles from our roads? Come on Brown - shove that in your pipe nd smoke it!! (By chocie I relinquished access to a motor vehicle some 4 years ago - not driven since. I either walk to work or when required for business purposes use public transport or rail services) |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Jun 29, 2007 21:09:22 GMT -1
I'm not sure if you're trying to elaborate on my points and agree on them, because that's what you have done I'm agreeing generally, but saying the public shouldn't have to have second-hand smoke imposed upon them. Sorry for the lack of clarity Aim of the ban (aside from non-smokers health concerns) is to encourage smokers to quit - and as a smoker I'm not against it. However, through choice I pay considerably more taxes than non-smokers - and as contentious as it may be I think smokers subsidize non-smokers NHS treatments. Why not ban alcohol in public places? Reckon it costs more to treat alcohol related injuries than smoking related illnesses (if someone can provide concrete figures I'll shut up). Lets have a ciggie and alcohol free taxation system - and everyone does a self assessment taxation. Easy enough to do a (random) blood test to assess whether or not someone takes a smoke or two or sinks a couple of jars. |
|
|
|
Post by weallloveleeds on Jun 29, 2007 21:25:34 GMT -1
I'm agreeing generally, but saying the public shouldn't have to have second-hand smoke imposed upon them. Sorry for the lack of clarity Why not ban alcohol in public places? Reckon it costs more to treat alcohol related injuries than smoking related illnesses (if someone can provide concrete figures I'll shut up). Alcohol is banned on the streets of Leeds, banning alcohol in all public places would be ridiculous- the pub industry would capitulate. Smoking directly causes illness to the smoker, and those around the smoker get no choice in the quality of the air they breathe in. Someone having a pint next to you is not a risk to your health. That's the main difference from my point of view. Obviously when alcohol is 'abused', it can lead to injuries from fights, drink driving or to things like liver diseases. The cost is a difficult comparison to make and I can't be bothered to go trawling through Govt bullshit to find relevant info right now. Self-assesment is open to abuse. Can you explain the rest of that bit in more detail? How exactly it would work? |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Jun 29, 2007 21:30:52 GMT -1
And just to chuck this into the melting pot - whilst I applaud the Govt. approach to raising the minimum smoking age to 18; why not make it 21! and at the same time raising the drinking age, driving age, voting age and time people can do front line military service to the same age level?
Students would come out of Uni's better educated and less alcohol afflicted; do gooders couldn't complain about teenagers being injured or killed in combat situations (which in fairness - you join the armed forces you have to expect some) and drivers currently whacked with high insurance premiums would see reduced costs.
As to the voting age males don't reach their majority till aged 21 - chav female have normally had 3 kids by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by PureOldGold on Jun 29, 2007 21:36:44 GMT -1
I passed my driving test at 19, the thought of using public transport for another 3 years would frighten me  as for drinking at 21  students would have no social life  |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Jun 29, 2007 21:40:36 GMT -1
Why not ban alcohol in public places? Reckon it costs more to treat alcohol related injuries than smoking related illnesses (if someone can provide concrete figures I'll shut up). Alcohol is banned on the streets of Leeds, banning alcohol in all public places would be ridiculous- the pub industry would capitulate. Smoking directly causes illness to the smoker, and those around the smoker get no choice in the quality of the air they breathe in. Someone having a pint next to you is not a risk to your health. That's the main difference from my point of view. Obviously when alcohol is 'abused', it can lead to injuries from fights, drink driving or to things like liver diseases. The cost is a difficult comparison to make and I can't be bothered to go trawling through Govt bullshit to find relevant info right now. Self-assesment is open to abuse. Can you explain the rest of that bit in more detail? How exactly it would work? Can you explain the current taxation system in the UK? It ain't simple - an explaination would be welcome (and I'm an accoutant). Simplest way is for NIL National Insurance deductions and everyone pays for private healthcare provision. As a smoker (and a drnker) you pay more. Individuals take out their own private pensions - you don't work then why should you retire with a govt. pension? |
|
|
|
Post by Lollipop on Jun 29, 2007 21:41:42 GMT -1
I passed my driving test at 19, the thought of using public transport for another 3 years would frighten me as for drinking at 21 students would have no social life I once got chucked out of a pub because I wasn't 21! I went to get a drink and the barmaid asked me for my age, I said 20...didn't see anything wrong with that, I'm over 18 after all. Then she said she couldn't serve me because I wasn't 21. Wtf?! |
|
|
|
Post by PureOldGold on Jun 29, 2007 21:47:04 GMT -1
I passed my driving test at 19, the thought of using public transport for another 3 years would frighten me as for drinking at 21 students would have no social life I once got chucked out of a pub because I wasn't 21! I went to get a drink and the barmaid asked me for my age, I said 20...didn't see anything wrong with that, I'm over 18 after all. Then she said she couldn't serve me because I wasn't 21. Wtf?! Thats odd, the supermarkets tell there staff to 'think 21' when serving alcohol, does not make fuck all sense since the age limit is 18, i've been asked for ID and i'm 19 and almost 6ft  |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Jun 29, 2007 21:58:22 GMT -1
I passed my driving test at 19, the thought of using public transport for another 3 years would frighten me as for drinking at 21 students would have no social life And when a majority of students contribute diddly squat to the public pot and are subsidised by parents looking forward to their retirements then what's the problem? And judging by the number of students leaving higher education with debts over £15k seems a pretty common theme amongst them. I'm all for paid tuition fees and accommodation fees by the govt but living expenses especially when is most is spent on alcohol (only according to media portrayal) then students have little sympathy with me in the current financial cliamate |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Jun 29, 2007 22:04:27 GMT -1
I once got chucked out of a pub because I wasn't 21! I went to get a drink and the barmaid asked me for my age, I said 20...didn't see anything wrong with that, I'm over 18 after all. Then she said she couldn't serve me because I wasn't 21. Wtf?! Thats odd, the supermarkets tell there staff to 'think 21' when serving alcohol, does not make fuck all sense since the age limit is 18, i've been asked for ID and i'm 19 and almost 6ft So make everything 21! You can drink, smoke, drive, die in battle and vote! What's the problem? Logical objections (other than from you junior adults who currently are 20 or under) please;D I'm in the mood for a reasoned debate! |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Jun 30, 2007 9:48:34 GMT -1
Thats odd, the supermarkets tell there staff to 'think 21' when serving alcohol, does not make fuck all sense since the age limit is 18, i've been asked for ID and i'm 19 and almost 6ft So make everything 21! You can drink, smoke, drive, die in battle and vote! What's the problem? Logical objections (other than from you junior adults who currently are 20 or under) please;D I'm in the mood for a reasoned debate! I'd say make everything 18, rather than 21 - otherwise, it's a great idea. The only trouble is, the majority of people who do things underage illegally presently wouldn't give a crap about the change anyway, so it becomes a bit of a wasted effort! |
|
|
|
Post by C@V on Jun 30, 2007 11:28:03 GMT -1
Smokers are ass slugs! Good riddance!
|
|
|
|
Post by reddeviljai on Jun 30, 2007 11:34:40 GMT -1
to be honest i couldnt give a monkey's really, i dont smoke but i dont understand the contradiction of banning smokin in pubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Jun 30, 2007 13:27:54 GMT -1
to be honest i couldnt give a monkey's really, i dont smoke but i dont understand the contradiction of banning smokin in pubs. Don't quite see how that's a contradiction - if they were called smoking houses, then maybe  |
|
|
|
Post by gw on Jul 2, 2007 15:21:54 GMT -1
Living in Wales ive been used to it for the last 2 months but even though I dont smoke, I still dont agree with the ban. Isnt the tradition of a pub to have a pint and a smoke  |
|
|
|
Post by thales on Jul 2, 2007 15:26:53 GMT -1
watch for the smell of farts for first few weeks, tell your local to light candles!!!!!
|
|
;D
as for drinking at 21 
students would have no social life 
