UKers in particular since it is coming into force this summer.
My friend expressed his total support of it in the pub last night. But then went on to tell me that the british population are too "nannied" by the government.
I think he's dumb.
On a personal level, I think its probably a good thing. I'm asthmatic too so smokey pubs can be a problem. On the other hand, it is part of a "traditional" pub atmosphere, and I think we will lose something when it comes into place.
But i cannot abide the method by which it became law.
This thread piled on faster than... something sexually suggestive and/or immature.
Seriously, how did it grow so fast?
Also: Don't start smoking. If you don't know what you're missing you won't care. Cut back on anything if you start developing an unhealthy daily habit. This includes internet, narcotics, alcohol and other things that effect your body chemistry. I don't think a person could even have sex every single day and not accumulate some negative health benefits.
It doesn't mean that people who smoke should get paid less for the same job than people who don't. It's just something to practice for your own personal benefit. Moderation, stay in control.
Walk straight, no need to mutate.
[spoiler:f50ac17783]Somone please get that reference[/spoiler:f50ac17783]
Sorry. I dont smoke nor have many smoker friend. So Im pretty naive about the whole thing.
Could you explain how I was being retarded so that I can correct my views please?
Is smoking somehow now healthy? I know its addictive and the nicotin rush feel, but how does that rush compare to say, eating chocolate. I assume it is more of a strong feeling for smoking to be so addictive.
That's a perfect example, as I smoke cigarettes to curb my chocolate cravings. I shit you not. I can go a few days without a cigarette just fine, but without them my chocolate addiction rears its delicious head. Like, every ten minutes. As opposed to 4-10 cigarettes I'd usually smoke in a 24 hour period.
As to the public smoking ban, I think it's silly because second-hand drinking kills more people everynight than second-hand smoke and contributes to the occurrence of more violent-crimes than second-hand smoke and no one is moving to ban public drinking. Not that I would either. Because I'm not that big of a fucking prick about other people's vices.
Im sure this government would ban it if they could find a way to enforce it, but they can't.
It's damned near impossible to enforce the existing marijuana ban, too. And the Ohio Board of Health is totally incapable of enforcing the Ohio smoking-ban. Unenforcability isn't really a factor people consider when banning shit. As well it shouldn't be. I mean fuck, just because you can't enforce a ban on, say, crack or meth, doesn't mean you should keep them legal. If you really believe that a particular controlled substance does nothing but serious harm to everyone who gets near it, you should support a ban on it regardless of whether or not it can be effectively enforced.
UKers in particular since it is coming into force this summer.
My friend expressed his total support of it in the pub last night. But then went on to tell me that the british population are too "nannied" by the government.
I think he's dumb.
I go to University in Edinburgh, so I've already been dealing with the smoking ban for some months now. Basically it means that I can't go to pubs - I don't drink, so all I can really do to occupy myself when there with friends is smoke.
Are hookah bars not going to be allowed in the UK either? Those places are the only decent places in NYC to smoke and have drinks since the smoking ban. Also, i'd rather hang out with people who would rather chill out on a comfy couch, smoking and drinking than with loud drunken idiots trying to hook up with fat chicks at the usual bars.
Yet marijuana remains illegal. I don't buy it, unenforcibility isn't a valid reason not to ban something if you think it has no benefits and is severely harmful to innocent bystanders.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
why would the government want to ban alcohol?
The same reason they say they want to ban smoking. Its bad for you.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
why would the government want to ban alcohol?
Because the demon rum is to blame for all the amoral behavior in this great nation. It's causing our teenage sons and daughters to have premarital sex and supplies mobsters with easy revenue through their nefarious night clubs. It goes against our just, Christian society.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
why would the government want to ban alcohol?
The same reason they say they want to ban smoking. Its bad for you.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
12.3% of Americans smoke pot. That's not all that far from the % who smoke cigarettes. I know the latter is dropping, and suspect the former is rising based on how few people even think it's worth wasting tax-dollars on anymore.
But that's beside the point. If there is a serious threat to the public, the government has a responsibility to make every effort to stamp it out, as the only reason the government exists is to serve the people. Other people's alcoholism is a far greater threat to my safety and livelihood than other people's smoking habits.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
why would the government want to ban alcohol?
The same reason they say they want to ban smoking. Its bad for you.
No it isn't.
I think things that cause a person to expell blood of a coffee-ground consistency from both ends, cause brain-damage, obliterate the liver, carry fatal withdrawals and so forth definitely qualify as "bad for you". But hey, I'm clearly straightedge, so I'm probably just being retarded to get in some dumb emo-chick's pants, or something.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
12.3% of Americans smoke pot. That's not all that far from the % who smoke cigarettes. I know the latter is dropping, and suspect the former is rising based on how few people even think it's worth wasting tax-dollars on anymore.
But that's beside the point. If there is a serious threat to the public, the government has a responsibility to make every effort to stamp it out, as the only reason the government exists is to serve the people. Other people's alcoholism is a far greater threat to my safety and livelihood than other people's smoking habits.
I think in America a drinking problem is very different to the one over here. Its is a far less social thing and still has a lot of stigma attached to it, whereas here, Friday night down the pub is an accepted part of life, and people generally think you're a bit odd if you don't socialise down the pub every few weekends or so.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
12.3% of Americans smoke pot. That's not all that far from the % who smoke cigarettes. I know the latter is dropping, and suspect the former is rising based on how few people even think it's worth wasting tax-dollars on anymore.
But that's beside the point. If there is a serious threat to the public, the government has a responsibility to make every effort to stamp it out, as the only reason the government exists is to serve the people. Other people's alcoholism is a far greater threat to my safety and livelihood than other people's smoking habits.
I think in America a drinking problem is very different to the one over here. Its is a far less social thing and still has a lot of stigma attached to it, whereas here, Friday night down the pub is an accepted part of life, and people generally think you're a bit odd if you don't socialise down the pub every few weekends or so.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
I assumed it had, and that's the only reason I didn't say it.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
12.3% of Americans smoke pot. That's not all that far from the % who smoke cigarettes. I know the latter is dropping, and suspect the former is rising based on how few people even think it's worth wasting tax-dollars on anymore.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
12.3% of Americans smoke pot. That's not all that far from the % who smoke cigarettes. I know the latter is dropping, and suspect the former is rising based on how few people even think it's worth wasting tax-dollars on anymore.
I think in America a drinking problem is very different to the one over here. Its is a far less social thing and still has a lot of stigma attached to it, whereas here, Friday night down the pub is an accepted part of life, and people generally think you're a bit odd if you don't socialise down the pub every few weekends or so.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
Hey. I didnt say I was for it for fucks sake.
Yeah, you just wanted to call all smokers retards from your high horse, is what I'm reading.
I think in America a drinking problem is very different to the one over here. Its is a far less social thing and still has a lot of stigma attached to it, whereas here, Friday night down the pub is an accepted part of life, and people generally think you're a bit odd if you don't socialise down the pub every few weekends or so.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
Hey. I didnt say I was for it for fucks sake.
Yeah, you just wanted to call all smokers retards from your high horse, is what I'm reading.
I didn't want to call them retards.
I did call them retards. Because in my opinion they are.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
Hey. I didnt say I was for it for fucks sake.
Yeah, you just wanted to call all smokers retards from your high horse, is what I'm reading.
I didn't want to call them retards.
I did call them retards. Because in my opinion they are.
Still, to each their own.
No, apparently not, because you'd rather force smokers out of places you don't even frequent.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
The reason they dont do this?
Because they're worried businesses will use the "being able to smoke" thing to get ahead in the market. While businesses who dont want smoking in their restraunts will lose out.
Stupid stupid stupid.
If you DON'T want second hand smoke - sit in the none-smoking section.
If your friends who smoke refuse to sit in the none-smoking section and just go outside or to the smoking section to smoke. They are assholes. Get new friends.
If it's still too smokey for you, dont go to a pub.
If you dont like car fumes dont go outside.
If you're scared of falling down stairs, use a lift.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
Hey. I didnt say I was for it for fucks sake.
Yeah, you just wanted to call all smokers retards from your high horse, is what I'm reading.
I didn't want to call them retards.
I did call them retards. Because in my opinion they are.
Still, to each their own.
In my opinion, Toad, you're a exaggerating sensationalist with a a tiny heart.
Banning smoking on privately owned property is ridiculous, Toad. It should be up to individual restaurant and bar owners, who in turn should base their decision on their clients.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
Not my fault another retard showed up to argue what has already been argued.
Hey. I didnt say I was for it for fucks sake.
Yeah, you just wanted to call all smokers retards from your high horse, is what I'm reading.
I didn't want to call them retards.
I did call them retards. Because in my opinion they are.
Still, to each their own.
In my opinion, Toad, you're a exaggerating sensationalist with a a tiny heart.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
12.3% of Americans smoke pot. That's not all that far from the % who smoke cigarettes. I know the latter is dropping, and suspect the former is rising based on how few people even think it's worth wasting tax-dollars on anymore.
Posts
Hence, the public smoking ban is a good thing.
On a personal level, I think its probably a good thing. I'm asthmatic too so smokey pubs can be a problem. On the other hand, it is part of a "traditional" pub atmosphere, and I think we will lose something when it comes into place.
But i cannot abide the method by which it became law.
Seriously, how did it grow so fast?
Also: Don't start smoking. If you don't know what you're missing you won't care. Cut back on anything if you start developing an unhealthy daily habit. This includes internet, narcotics, alcohol and other things that effect your body chemistry. I don't think a person could even have sex every single day and not accumulate some negative health benefits.
It doesn't mean that people who smoke should get paid less for the same job than people who don't. It's just something to practice for your own personal benefit. Moderation, stay in control.
Walk straight, no need to mutate.
[spoiler:f50ac17783]Somone please get that reference[/spoiler:f50ac17783]
As to the public smoking ban, I think it's silly because second-hand drinking kills more people everynight than second-hand smoke and contributes to the occurrence of more violent-crimes than second-hand smoke and no one is moving to ban public drinking. Not that I would either. Because I'm not that big of a fucking prick about other people's vices.
At all.
Im sure this government would ban it if they could find a way to enforce it, but they can't.
Why could you not enforce a drinking ban?
I go to University in Edinburgh, so I've already been dealing with the smoking ban for some months now. Basically it means that I can't go to pubs - I don't drink, so all I can really do to occupy myself when there with friends is smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
Always fails.
Thats different. Thats an outright ban across the board, not a public ban.
If you cant enforce a law then there is no point making it law.
You would be surprised how much enforcement you can have on banning things like drugs, as only a small amount of people use them.
But alcohol and drinking, which is so widespread and so common, would be extremely hard to enforce. Millions upon millions of people suddenly breaking the law, you could not do it. Closing down all pubs, all bars. It would be a serious hit to the economy.
The same reason they say they want to ban smoking. Its bad for you.
No it isn't.
But that's beside the point. If there is a serious threat to the public, the government has a responsibility to make every effort to stamp it out, as the only reason the government exists is to serve the people. Other people's alcoholism is a far greater threat to my safety and livelihood than other people's smoking habits.
In 40 pages, this hasn't been already said?
I think in America a drinking problem is very different to the one over here. Its is a far less social thing and still has a lot of stigma attached to it, whereas here, Friday night down the pub is an accepted part of life, and people generally think you're a bit odd if you don't socialise down the pub every few weekends or so.
Well at least you're not the irish.
That's a lot higher than 12.3%
Just saying
Hey. I didnt say I was for it for fucks sake.
Just saying.
We're a nation of binge drinkers. Hooray.
Yeah, you just wanted to call all smokers retards from your high horse, is what I'm reading.
Alcopops are the spawn of the devil.
I didn't want to call them retards.
I did call them retards. Because in my opinion they are.
Still, to each their own.
Except they've been doing that for hundreds of years.
Its more like the Frat boys are wannabe Irish.
The reason they dont do this?
Because they're worried businesses will use the "being able to smoke" thing to get ahead in the market. While businesses who dont want smoking in their restraunts will lose out.
Stupid stupid stupid.
If you DON'T want second hand smoke - sit in the none-smoking section.
If your friends who smoke refuse to sit in the none-smoking section and just go outside or to the smoking section to smoke. They are assholes. Get new friends.
If it's still too smokey for you, dont go to a pub.
If you dont like car fumes dont go outside.
If you're scared of falling down stairs, use a lift.
Common sense.
In my opinion, Toad, you're a exaggerating sensationalist with a a tiny heart.
Nothing quite like ingrained alcoholism to really bring together a culture.