I am interested in people's views on the subject of passive smoking. Please vote for the option which most closely reflects your views.

I've voted the last option. I hate smoking and I get so cross when someone lights up at the side of me... Particulary at bus shelters when its raining!

I can guarantee this will turn into a slanging match between smokers and non smokers....haven't we covered this in various forms over the last few months?? Think I'll just sit back and watch the mayhem

Ive given up now for 5 months after 10 years, and i think smoking is disgusting. It stinks, and giving up is so easy, only lame ppl find it hard to give up IMO.

sorry, dont mean to shout!!

there was already a long and interesting thread covering almost precisely this question.

Sheffield - Non smoking city (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread/t-8408.html)

Majority back a Smoking Ban (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread/t-8838.html)

Originally posted by Cyclone
there was already a long and interesting thread covering almost precisely this question.

Sheffield - Non smoking city (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread/t-8408.html)

Majority back a Smoking Ban (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread/t-8838.html)

well i hope that the government ban it from public places. Its in everones best interest and smokers are selfish disgusting ppl.

a nice balanced generalisation there. Smokers are selfish disgusting people!

UH OH...here we go...........

WOW! 93% of the vote so far say "I don't like smoke and feel I should be entitled to protection from it".

The writing is on the wall for smoking in public places!

what i want to know is what are the health fascists going to ban next:loopy:

Originally posted by Cyclone
a nice balanced generalisation there. Smokers are selfish disgusting people!

And another one.:D

Originally posted by panda79
what i want to know is what are the health fascists going to ban next:loopy:

I am at present writing an article on the subject of making Sheffield a non-smoking city.

where are all the smokers going to go ......maybe we should set up a underground lair:rolleyes:

Why not? You'll all end up underground sooner rather than later ;)

thing is most of the bars you go in these days have exellent air conditoning anyway.....and the ones that have not i cant see the anti smoking persons going in anyway seeing as there full of nasty working class persons:loopy:

If smoking is banned in public places I plan to place a large curse on everyone giving them as much grief as I will endure listening to the husband whinging about his rights to kill himself.

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by Abdul
Why not? You'll all end up underground sooner rather than later ;)
health issues aside the anti smoking brigade need somthing to cling on to seeing as they have no life they take it on board to be control freaks with nothing better to do than harrass anyone who dares to live there life how they see fit,,,,,,,,,maybe by typing stuff on a forum lets them get rid of all that pent up anger cos you never see them do it in public

i wonder why:rolleyes:

Originally posted by panda79
health issues aside the anti smoking brigade need somthing to cling on to seeing as they have no life they take it on board to be control freaks with nothing better to do than harrass anyone who dares to live there life how they see fit,,,,,,,,,maybe by typing stuff on a forum lets them get rid of all that pent up anger cos you never see them do it in public

i wonder why:rolleyes:

I wonder if this is meant to be ironic.;)

Somehow, I doubt it.:loopy:

I have never smoked but my partner does. He know's I hate it but I don't nag! He started those anti-smoking classes last week and has just started taking Zyban yesterday. Fingers crossed!

I hate smoking in public places especially anywhere selling food. I know it's the old arguament about a persons right to chose and I do agree with that. It's just, as a non smoker, my right to chose is taken away if someone lights up near me in say a pub or other public place.

Why not have smoking rooms in pubs etc so people can chose whether they want to have their air full of smoke or not? It then gives people the choice. Just a thought.

i have lived with fuzzy and nomme for 7 years and they only in the past year have quit.

i became used to smoke, even now they have stopped and there is a very distinct difference in the house i do not care about smoke of any type.

i go out a fair bit and my mums mates smoke, i dont care they can smoke its their problem let them sort it out

My advice to people who dont like smoke and cant out up with it, move!

your next question will be

why should i move when i want to be there?

well why should they move??

its an on going circulalr motion! neither person will move untill forced to, by either authorities or law!

Rather than a complete ban in public, I think it would be better to have designated smoking areas. Then non-smokers can avoid those areas completely.

To the smokers here, do you not realise how rude and inconsiderate it is to go and stand/sit next to someone and puff away. Do you do this in front of your non-smoking friends?

I know you cant help the direction of the wind, but a bit of common courtesy would be appreciated. I don't want YOUR fumes in MY face, if I did, i'd stand next to you!

Originally posted by Sidla
Rather than a complete ban in public, I think it would be better to have designated smoking areas. Then non-smokers can avoid those areas completely.

Agreed... Trouble is though, that's an idea that's actually sensible and makes sense, the current Government are incapable of thinking like that IMO.

Originally posted by dinp
To the smokers here, do you not realise how rude and inconsiderate it is to go and stand/sit next to someone and puff away. Do you do this in front of your non-smoking friends?

I know you cant help the direction of the wind, but a bit of common courtesy would be appreciated. I don't want YOUR fumes in MY face, if I did, i'd stand next to you!

Hi, giving up smoker here. I'd like to point out that not all smokers are inconsiderate. A lot are, but for example, if i was ever at a bus stop smoking, i'd stand well away from everyone else. I usually didn't smoke apart from at home anyway.

Originally posted by Andy78
Hi, giving up smoker here. I'd like to point out that not all smokers are inconsiderate. A lot are, but for example, if i was ever at a bus stop smoking, i'd stand well away from everyone else. I usually didn't smoke apart from at home anyway.

Well done for giving up, i'm sure your wallet's a lot healtheir these days :D

I know not all are inconsiderate, I should have mentioned that, but some REALLY are. I wonder if the smoking is an extension of their personality... (for the inconsiderate ones)

Don't consider myself given up yet, still early days. Got to admit a lot of smokers have always annoyed me. like the kids that will get on a train and spark up, then get off 2 mins later. like they couldn't wait 2 mins.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
If smoking is banned in public places I plan to place a large curse on everyone giving them as much grief as I will endure listening to the husband whinging about his rights to kill himself.

Moon Maiden

Hehe, it's not his right to kill himself that's the problem tho' - he (and other smokers) don't have any rights to kill others! :P

i'm all for passive smoking. don't want to have to start buying the damn things to feed my addiction.

Originally posted by Killian
i'm all for passive smoking. don't want to have to start buying the damn things to feed my addiction.

lol :D

Originally posted by Andy78
Don't consider myself given up yet, still early days. Got to admit a lot of smokers have always annoyed me. like the kids that will get on a train and spark up, then get off 2 mins later. like they couldn't wait 2 mins.
Yeah, I hate that, especially people who smoke on busses. I don't really know what it's like around here because I don't really use busses in Sheff, but back where I live people smoke on the upper deck of the bus despite no smoking signs. It's not uncommon on a Saturday night to get people smoking weed on the upper deck, and it makes me feel extremely ill. :mad:

Originally posted by Fletch
i have lived with fuzzy and nomme for 7 years and they only in the past year have quit.

i became used to smoke, even now they have stopped and there is a very distinct difference in the house i do not care about smoke of any type.

i go out a fair bit and my mums mates smoke, i dont care they can smoke its their problem let them sort it out

My advice to people who dont like smoke and cant out up with it, move!

your next question will be

why should i move when i want to be there?

well why should they move??

its an on going circulalr motion! neither person will move untill forced to, by either authorities or law!

Where do you suggest non-smokers move to that is genuinely non-smoking, Mars?

You say that it is their [the smokers] problem if they smoke. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, smoke does tend to drift and be breathed in by non-smokers.

I did, specifically, make this a thread about PASSIVE smoking rather than smoking in general. The issue in question is not whether or not people have the right to smoke but whether or not non-smokers have the right to be protected from smoke.

Originally posted by panda79
what i want to know is what are the health fascists going to ban next:loopy:

I don't claim to be an expert on Fascism but I'm not quite sure your description of non-smokers as Fascists is particulary accurate. The issue of whether or not non-smokers deserve protection from passive smoking appears to me to have very little to do with Fascism.

It is interesting that you see the issue in terms of a ban rather than one of protection. Perhaps you should take a look at the latest poll results. Out of the five smokers who have voted four of them favour protection for non-smokers.

Originally posted by dinp
To the smokers here, do you not realise how rude and inconsiderate it is to go and stand/sit next to someone and puff away. Do you do this in front of your non-smoking friends?


Unfortunately in my experience the answer is yes.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I don't claim to be an expert on Fascism but I'm not quite sure your description of non-smokers as Fascists is particulary accurate. The issue of whether or not non-smokers deserve protection from passive smoking appears to me to have very little to do with Fascism.

It is interesting that you see the issue in terms of a ban rather than one of protection. Perhaps you should take a look at the latest poll results. Out of the five smokers who have voted four of them favour protection for non-smokers.
you mean the poll on here ? ...........

hitler was anti smoking look what happend to him:loopy:

Originally posted by panda79
you mean the poll on here ? ...........

hitler was anti smoking look what happend to him:loopy:

True. he was also a t-total vegeterian. The question is do you consider all non-smokers to be like Hitler?

What exactly are your views on passive smoking? Do you feel that non-smokers deserve any protection at all or do you favour allowing smoking anywhere at anytime?

to a certain degree i do .................. i actually voted I smoke but believe it right to protect non-smokers if that means anything:loopy:

Originally posted by panda79
to a certain degree i do .................. i actually voted I smoke but believe it right to protect non-smokers if that means anything:loopy:

Then I don't understand your views that wanting to protect non-smokers equates to some sort of Fascism. Surley a much better historical annology would be the public health reforms of the 19th century.

as i said in one of my earler postings on this subject theres plenty of bars with no smoking sections most with exellent air conditionng ..............the thing is if you ban smoking whats it going to be next ?

Originally posted by panda79
as i said in one of my earler postings on this subject theres plenty of bars with no smoking sections most with exellent air conditionng ..............the thing is if you ban smoking whats it going to be next ?

I, for one, haven't suggested that anything be next. Also you really must be more specific about your termonology. As far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that smoking be banned, only that non-smokers should be entitled to full protection from smoke in public places. This is clearly not the case as the law stands now.

Neither did I specifically mention bars; passive smoking is a problem in many public places not just bars. As for smoking sections it all depends on whether or not the smoking section is a seperate room with closed doors to prevent smoke from drifting into the non-smoking area. Often this is not the case. Seperate 'open plan' areas are not by any means truely effective.

As for air conditioning this is even less effective in offering protection. At best it reduces the amount of smoke in the air. It most certainly does not eliminate it alltogether.

I would be interested to find out if Sheffield Council are planning to use proposed powers to protect non-smokers in public places.

I understand the Government may introduce such powers.

Does anyone know the current situation?

i think it's currently under consideration by the council.

You say that it is their [the smokers] problem if they smoke. Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, smoke does tend to drift and be breathed in by non-smokers.

it is the smokers problem that they smoke, its their addiction and their habbit. i agree that if people dont want it near them, they dont have to have it near them, but why should the smoker move?

surely if there is a higher population smoking, smoking should be allowed even in public places. and people who dont want to breathe it in then they should go somewher else. and vica versa

I don't smoke but don't think there should be a government ban.It would be better if it was up to each individual company whether it wanted to be smoking/no-smoking/sections etc,then people could choose where they wanted to go.

I smoke on and off... and I dare say people who have given up smoking and are being self-righteous about it will have a go at me for saying that :roll:
I am what is categorised as a social smoker, yes we do exist, a packet of 10 cigs can last me a month as I only ever smoke if Im in a social gathering and with smoker friends, and I will normally only have about 2. I never smoke at home, uni, or a work. Only in the comfort of a pub and in a designated smoking area.
The only time I do a chimney impression is when I am worried or nervous about something, so people who have observed my chimney act at past meets, I had something on my mind.
All in all Im a considerate smoker, I often ask if its ok for me to spark up and if people object I will either not bother or go outside.
Im gonna finish now on a rather over-used and possibly lame argument.
Ok all you people worried about passive smoking, how many of you own cars??? So much crap comes out of the exhaust of cars and buses that we all quite happily breathe in which is probably not helping our health much either.
rant over :rant: :D

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I, for one, haven't suggested that anything be next.

how about banning drinking in pubs? all those drunks slobbering over you. puts me right off having a quiet ciggie!

Originally posted by Fletch
surely if there is a higher population smoking, smoking should be allowed even in public places. and people who dont want to breathe it in then they should go somewher else. and vica versa

But there isn't Fletch. Only 27% of the adult population smoke, and the figure is dropping each year.

In fact the poll in this thread shows a very similar statistic!

Originally posted by Tony
But there isn't Fletch. Only 27% of the adult population smoke, and the figure is dropping each year.

In fact the poll in this thread shows a very similar statistic!


:confused: how can 36 votes on here compare with the whole country:confused:

Originally posted by Tony
But there isn't Fletch. Only 27% of the adult population smoke, and the figure is dropping each year.

In fact the poll in this thread shows a very similar statistic!

can you please explain where this statistic comes from? I've never been polled on this subject and neither has any of my friends, workmates or family, so it is not 27% of the adult population as a whole. is it taken from GP records or have they just asked 100 people walking into Oxford University on a monday morning as is the usual source of most statistics.

take it im not allowed to smoke on sunday at the meet then...will have to sit all by myself. btw , i used to smoke a lot but now only smoke when i get drunk, absolutely lovely! there was no option for me to vote, i am a very considerate smoker, dont smoke in restaurants, only in clubs and pubs occasionally. never at any other times. my boyfriend has bad asthma and i dont smoke when hes around.

Originally posted by Killian
can you please explain where this statistic comes from? I've never been polled on this subject and neither has any of my friends, workmates or family, so it is not 27% of the adult population as a whole. is it taken from GP records or have they just asked 100 people walking into Oxford University on a monday morning as is the usual source of most statistics. Pedant. I can't be botherd to find a link, but you could try the National Statistics website or the BMA or the GMC or QUIT or ASH or any one of loads of references.

Originally posted by Tony
Pedant. I can't be botherd to find a link, but you could try the National Statistics website or the BMA or the GMC or QUIT or ASH or any one of loads of references.

i would if i thought it would prove anything, but they probably get their statistics from the same place i mentioned.

Originally posted by Killian
how about banning drinking in pubs? all those drunks slobbering over you. puts me right off having a quiet ciggie!

How about we ban them from forcing it down T-totallers throats.

Oh that's right, they already can't and don't do that!

Originally posted by Mosherchik
Ok all you people worried about passive smoking, how many of you own cars??? So much crap comes out of the exhaust of cars and buses that we all quite happily breathe in which is probably not helping our health much either.
rant over :rant: :D

Is that actually an argument for anything at all. I own a car, does that mean I have to let you poison me? Fine, i'll bring my car into the pub and you can breath the exhaust gases.
Most of the smokers in here would agree with my right to do this, no? And they would say, well, he wants his car in the pub, why should he have to move just because we don't want carbon monoxide poisoning.

thats so silly!!!! its impossible!

Originally posted by Tony
But there isn't Fletch. Only 27% of the adult population smoke, and the figure is dropping each year.

In fact the poll in this thread shows a very similar statistic!

ah but this poll doesnt because this poll shows that 26 people dont like it. but 17 people can put up with it. and thats not even the whole forum! so things may change!

just because there is a 40% of people who dont like it there are still 60% who can put up with it!

figures t'other way around. 60% believe they have a right to be protected from it, 40% either don't believe that, don't care, or smoke themselves. And only 20% have actually voted for smoking.

The sample size is probably too small as yet to be statistically significant, but it is probably fairly representative as the forum seems to have a reasonable cross section of people using it.

It's probably weighted against smokers though. (Warning, non PC comment about to be made), in my experience more working class people smoke than middle class. And as internet access is probably weighted away from the working class that is reflected in here.

Originally posted by mimicraze
thats so silly!!!! its impossible!

I'd imagine that was the reaction to Sir Walter Raleigh when he suggested that people cut down plants, dried them, chopped up the leaves very small, stuffed the result into clay pipes and then set it all on fire, indoors, for pleasure.

What about an extra option?

"I smoke, but am kind enough not to do it where and when it annoys people - but if they dont stop bleating on about it then i'm going to start blowing it in their face"

A bit long maybe - could do with touching up:)

Anyway - why is it always the smokers that have to go outside. Lets make the non-smokers move when we feel like a fag, after all they are the ones moaning about passive smoking, and we will all be out of breath if we have to keep going outside and back in again.

Non smoker - "would you mind awfully not smoking, youre killing me with your smoke"
Smoker - "thats the idea"

We will all die - and smoking only takes years off the end of your life, so we'll only be missing out on adult nappies. :thumbsup:

A missing element throughout this thread seems to be concern for staff who have to work in a smoky atmosphere.

One of the reasons that health experts (some of whom smoke, I should imagine) are calling for a ban on smoking in public places is to protect the health of those who have to work in those places. I know people are going to argue that the workers can exercise their choice by not working in a smoky environment but in many low paid jobs this is not an option. If the owner/manager tells someone where to work and they refuse it's a simple matter of firing them and employing someone more malleable.

So, it's not just to protect non-smokers that legislation is planned but everyone who currently has to work around smokers.

It would be ironic if someone who smoked died from passive smoking of other people's smoke wouldn't it?

Make them wear masks - I dont want people moaning while im enjoying my self pollution.

I though this was supposed to be a free country as well :loopy:
If it all boils down to smokers being marginalised and holed up in a little hut that so be it! at least we'll be away from all the hand waving, spluttering drama queens.
While we're at it we might as well seperate pubs into alcohol and non alcohol areas since thats bad for your health and just as addictive and a great stigma for social problems... and before we start the well you dont get passive drunkeness, no you dont, but I count getting a black eye by a drunken lout a dangerous by product of drinking.

Lets just face it we're all selfish b******s smokers want to smoke as is our right, and non-smokers dont want to breathe in our fumes as is their right, can we ever coexist in civilised society?

drunken louts can be arrested for punching you in the eye. Maybe smokers should be arrested for forcing someone to breath there smoke?

why is it always the smokers that have to go outside

because they are the ones who are actively doing something that damages someone else's health. It's not the non-smokers actively non-smoking is it.

We all have rights, but why should a smokers right to smoke outweigh the non-smokers right to not smoke?

I fall between the final two options! I don't smoke and don't particulaly like it but accept that if I go into a bar club its a social situation where people smoke and drink and if I don't like it I stay out! On the other hand if I'm at work and not really there by choice (well not in the same way as a pub) then I expect to have a nice smoke free environment :)

Looks like my wishy-washy liberalism and live-and-let-live attitude is coming to the fore again!

what about the people who work in the bars and clubs then?

I frequently waver between the two sides of this argument. As Mosherchick said above, I can't stand the drama queens who go over the top, but at the same time it is inconsiderate of people to smoke around non-smokers.

As for working in a bar, why would you get a job in a bar where you know smoking is permitted if you don't want to breathe smoke?

Originally posted by Sidla
I frequently waver between the two sides of this argument. As Mosherchick said above, I can't stand the drama queens who go over the top, but at the same time it is inconsiderate of people to smoke around non-smokers.

As for working in a bar, why would you get a job in a bar where you know smoking is permitted if you don't want to breathe smoke?

Maybe they can't get a job anywhere else for whatever reason?

Originally posted by sarah d
I don't smoke but don't think there should be a government ban.It would be better if it was up to each individual company whether it wanted to be smoking/no-smoking/sections etc,then people could choose where they wanted to go.

Why?

That is like saying it should be up to each individual motorist what level of exhaust emisions come from his car. Sometimes governments have to act in the interest of the wider community.

Originally posted by Fletch
ah but this poll doesnt because this poll shows that 26 people dont like it. but 17 people can put up with it. and thats not even the whole forum! so things may change!

just because there is a 40% of people who dont like it there are still 60% who can put up with it!

I haven't checked your figures but assuming they are right, why should people have to put up with it?

Originally posted by floyd77
What about an extra option?

"I smoke, but am kind enough not to do it where and when it annoys people - but if they dont stop bleating on about it then i'm going to start blowing it in their face"

A bit long maybe - could do with touching up:)

Anyway - why is it always the smokers that have to go outside. Lets make the non-smokers move when we feel like a fag, after all they are the ones moaning about passive smoking, and we will all be out of breath if we have to keep going outside and back in again.

Non smoker - "would you mind awfully not smoking, youre killing me with your smoke"
Smoker - "thats the idea"

We will all die - and smoking only takes years off the end of your life, so we'll only be missing out on adult nappies. :thumbsup:

So much of this is patent nonsense that there is little reason in replying to it. How dare anyone so flippantly talk about their right to shorten my life.

As for your first point your views seem close to option 2 in the poll.

Originally posted by floyd77
Make them wear masks - I dont want people moaning while im enjoying my self pollution.

If you consider 'self pollution' is ok in public how about 'self abuse'?

Everyone has a right to their pleasures but there is a time and place for things.

Originally posted by Sidla
I frequently waver between the two sides of this argument. As Mosherchick said above, I can't stand the drama queens who go over the top, but at the same time it is inconsiderate of people to smoke around non-smokers.

As for working in a bar, why would you get a job in a bar where you know smoking is permitted if you don't want to breathe smoke?

I thought better of you than this from previous comments Sidla.

Maybe all health and safety laws at work should be scrapped and when people are injured we can just laugh it off and say "well, they shouldn't have chosen to do that job", and somehow that will make it alright!

Originally posted by Sidla
As for working in a bar, why would you get a job in a bar where you know smoking is permitted if you don't want to breathe smoke?

I agree with that to some extent; any sane person knows that bars are smoke-filled environments.

As a student i'm always in bars and clubs and I don't like the smoky atmosphere at all. I always try and find a no-smoking area if at all poss. I could make a personal stand and refuse to enter any smoking bar, but then my choice would be very limited and i'd be punishing myself as I like the social atmosphere.

All I ask for is that smokers consider those around them.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I fall between the final two options! I don't smoke and don't particulaly like it but accept that if I go into a bar club its a social situation where people smoke and drink and if I don't like it I stay out! On the other hand if I'm at work and not really there by choice (well not in the same way as a pub) then I expect to have a nice smoke free environment :)

Looks like my wishy-washy liberalism and live-and-let-live attitude is coming to the fore again!

i agree totally!!

what about the people who work in the bars and clubs then?

people have a choice of where they work if they dont like smoke, quit and then they sould find a job that doesnt entitle smoking.

As Mosherchick said above, I can't stand the drama queens who go over the top, but at the same time it is inconsiderate of people to smoke around non-smokers.

oo i hate the drama queens. if as in my other quote someone is at work and they are a smoker then they should, by common courtisy, go outside

That is like saying it should be up to each individual motorist what level of exhaust emisions come from his car.

thats not true, the car manu facturers decide how many fumes come out. and there is a law on that!

Everyone has a right to their pleasures but there is a time and place for things.

true!

Maybe its inconsiderate for a non-smoker to stand near a smoker - and hogging all the good smoke on the cheap??

As for 'how dare i be so flippant with peoples life' - lighten up, it was a joke. (or is that 'light up' ):o

Originally posted by Cyclone
what about the people who work in the bars and clubs then?

I'm afraid thats a choice for them to make not for me to make for them!

oh for fu*ks sake. jesus this is going nowhere, i hope therell be someone to scab a cig off on sunday hehe! anyways, u shud all chill with the arguing,. thats all you bloody lot do on here and dont you think its a bit tedious and boring after a while? every thread i see is full of whingers. god. grumpy bums. do what you want, just make sure your thinking of others while your doing it. if you dont smoke, dont sit with smokers if your that bothered, dont just sit there with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, just move!
mimi
x

Originally posted by mimicraze
oh for fu*ks sake. jesus this is going nowhere, i hope therell be someone to scab a cig off on sunday hehe! anyways, u shud all chill with the arguing,. thats all you bloody lot do on here and dont you think its a bit tedious and boring after a while? every thread i see is full of whingers. god. grumpy bums. do what you want, just make sure your thinking of others while your doing it. if you dont smoke, dont sit with smokers if your that bothered, dont just sit there with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, just move!
mimi
x

well said. i'm a non-smoker and i simply don't understand how smoking encroaches on peoples lives the way it does some people on here. however, i already explained all this at the beginning of this thread and it has whinged on for pages and pages afterwards. people smoking outside doesn't affect me at all. if i go in a pub and its too smokey for me. i go to another one with less smoke. fortunately, i appreciate how difficult it is to give up smoking and know that not all smokers are ignorant or selfish.

wow killian i love you! i hardly EVER smoke and i hate smokey pubs more than anything so i leave. cheers for that, a non smoker whos on the same wave length as me.

Originally posted by mimicraze
wow killian i love you!

if you look anything like Raul of real madrid or Viggo Mortensen we may be able to come to some kind of arrangement!!;)

Better make that Nicole Kidman, actually, as I've just discovered you're female ;)

Originally posted by Fletch


thats not true, the car manu facturers decide how many fumes come out. and there is a law on that!



That was my point exactly. There are laws (no doubt set by the 'Nanny State' and enforced by 'Jobsworths' and 'Little Hitlers' in some people's opinions) which control emisions for the benefit of society as a whole. This is not true of cigarettes and where they can be smoked.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm afraid thats a choice for them to make not for me to make for them!

Often it is a choice made by the Employment Department who have many rules about 'Actively Seeking Work' and not refusing jobs. A person could loose their benefit if they refuse to work in a smokey bar. Not wanting to be exposed to passive smoking is not considered a good enough reason to refuse a job.

Can't be bothered to check all 6 pages of posts, but has anyone considered the fact that smokers in the workplace get several cigarette breaks throughout the day, while the non-smokers don't? Would non-smokers have grounds to complain and fight for the right to go out for a similar amount of breaks for a breath of fresh air? Or, given the fact that 5 cigarette breaks a day for a working week could amount to over 2 hours working time, could non-smokers argue that they should be allowed to leave over 2 hours early on a Friday afternoon to make up for it? Thats food for thought isn't it!?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Maybe all health and safety laws at work should be scrapped and when people are injured we can just laugh it off and say "well, they shouldn't have chosen to do that job", and somehow that will make it alright!
Well that's certainly a perspective that could be looked at. I've lost count of the number of people I've heard complaining about H&S regulations being too OTT in this day and age.

Originally posted by t020
Can't be bothered to check all 6 pages of posts, but has anyone considered the fact that smokers in the workplace get several cigarette breaks throughout the day, while the non-smokers don't? Would non-smokers have grounds to complain and fight for the right to go out for a similar amount of breaks for a breath of fresh air? Or, given the fact that 5 cigarette breaks a day for a working week could amount to over 2 hours working time, could non-smokers argue that they should be allowed to leave over 2 hours early on a Friday afternoon to make up for it? Thats food for thought isn't it!?
When I used to work it was recommended that everyone had a 5 minute break every hour. Mostly only the smokers bothered (I wasn't a smoker back then), becuase if you're in the middle of something it breaks the swing of things.

If you are forced to work in a smokey bar - again I refer you to my earlier post - wear a mask! You'll either get moved to a non smokey part, or sacked - either way, you wont have to work there anymore! :D

Most places I've worked make you take part of your break allowance to use for smoking breaks so its all 'fair'.


In all seriousness though - we all do things that are bad for us, and others - smoking is just one of them. If you dont like something then stop doing it. Open a non-smoking pub and boycot the smoking ones.
If someones smoking is bothering you, ask them to move or stop - or do the same yourself.
We could argue about rights forever - half the people will moan because their rights are being infringed by smokers, the other half will say the opposite! Who's to say who's right?

I leave you with this, to cause some controversy;

When a smoker lights up, nothing is bothering him - then a non smoker comes along and annoys him by complaining. Why should the smoker move, he was perfectly happy before the non-smoker came along?

When a non-smoker is drinking, nothing is bothering him, then a smoker lights up and annoys him with smoke. Why should the non-smoker move, he was perfectly happy before the smoker came along?

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Often it is a choice made by the Employment Department who have many rules about 'Actively Seeking Work' and not refusing jobs. A person could loose their benefit if they refuse to work in a smokey bar. Not wanting to be exposed to passive smoking is not considered a good enough reason to refuse a job.

Although its many years since I filled in a claim form I remember you can put in the type of work you are looking for - if you have that much of a problem with smoking you could simply indicate you arent looking for bar work?

I refuse to employ a smoker.

They always want sympathy when tubes are driven into their throats.

Originally posted by Yorkie
I refuse to employ a smoker.

They always want sympathy when tubes are driven into their throats.

and they get extra breaks!

Originally posted by Yorkie
They always want sympathy when tubes are driven into their throats.

i should think anyone would. what the hell kind of business are you in?

Originally posted by Killian


i should think anyone would. what the hell kind of business are you in?


Breathing Apparatus.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Often it is a choice made by the Employment Department who have many rules about 'Actively Seeking Work' and not refusing jobs. A person could loose their benefit if they refuse to work in a smokey bar. Not wanting to be exposed to passive smoking is not considered a good enough reason to refuse a job.
Yes it is -

You can refuse a Notified Vacancy with "Good Cause" if you refuse:

To be a scab provided that the specific vacancy is one caused by the dispute.

On religious or conscientious grounds, which can include:

Objecting to not being a member of a trade union in a work place where non membership is a condition of employment

Objecting to work with material which may be used for the destruction of human life

Working in abattoirs etc.

On health grounds eg. "excessive physical or mental stress"

Due to excessive travelling time to work (more than one hour each way)

If the job's hours and days of working differ significantly from those set out in your Job Seekers Agreement.

You can't refuse to apply for a job because it is badly paid!!


Them's the rules - stand your ground if you are told otherwise. (although YMMV)

Originally posted by Yorkie
Breathing Apparatus.

not organised torture then? :)

I've never smoked in my life but have had numerous friends who do smoke. They wouldn't smoke in my house, I wouldn't expect them NOT to smoke in their own house and if we go to a pub then I view it as an occupational hazard.

I draw the line in restaurants - I hate it when someone nearby smokes while I'm eating.

My father smoked, my mum smoked until she was pregnant with me. Many of my relatives smoked as a child (1960s and 1970s) and I believe that one possible health condition I may have to look out in years to come might have a relationship to exposure to carcinogens from smoke as a child.

HOWEVER....we all drive our cars which vent all sorts of stuff. We get 10u particulates from diesel engines (busses, trains, taxis) and we dump enough crap in the air, food and water to give rise to various environmental issues. And large numbers of us wander around with UHF / low microwave radio transmitters (mobile phones) zapping us and our surrounding commuters every day.

Smoking may be the obvious starting point, but once the 'thin end of the wedge' is pushed in I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing bans on mobiles round children, etc.?

Joe, who may or may not be playing devil's advocate!

Originally posted by JoePritchard


I've never smoked in my life.



Congratulations !


Your reward is a longer, happier, healthier life and a more powerful, satisfying, stimulating sex drive.


You will not require Viagra. :D


. . . not to mention the thousands of pounds you've saved.

Originally posted by Killian



Not organised torture then? :)



LOL no need - smokers torture themselves :D

Originally posted by JoePritchard
if we go to a pub then I view it as an occupational hazard. You got it in one Joe! You just missed the point that the people who suffer most from passive smoking are the workers in pubs not the visitors.

Surely they deserve a smoke free workplace?

I hear Oil rigs are quite dangerous places to work too, along with many other places and occupations - should we ban oil too. :loopy:

Originally posted by floyd77
I hear Oil rigs are quite dangerous places to work too, along with many other places and occupations - should we ban oil too. :loopy:

Find me a brick wall someone.:loopy:

Does anyone here work in a bar or know someone who works in a bar? If so, does the smoke bother you/them?

Originally posted by Sidla
Does anyone here work in a bar or know someone who works in a bar? If so, does the smoke bother you/them?


If it bothered them enough they could always not work there.

Originally posted by max
Find me a brick wall someone.:loopy:
I was merely pointing out that banning smoking because it creates a hazardous working environment is a tad over the top. Ultimately, where you work is your decision - if it isnt and you're forced to take whatever job you can get the you have bigger worries than 2nd hand smoke!

I'm a bit allergic to cats, so I chose not to work in a cattery - not ban cats!

Originally posted by t020
If it bothered them enough they could always not work there.
Well that's what I'm trying to get at...

Originally posted by floyd77
I was merely pointing out that banning smoking because it creates a hazardous working environment is a tad over the top. Ultimately, where you work is your decision - if it isnt and you're forced to take whatever job you can get the you have bigger worries than 2nd hand smoke!

I'm a bit allergic to cats, so I chose not to work in a cattery - not ban cats!

Big difference between working in a hazardous environment and one which will kill you, I would have thought. In one, safety measures can reduce the risk, in the other you die.

Bigger worries than dying from second hand smoke?:loopy: Name a few, please.

Originally posted by Sidla
Does anyone here work in a bar or know someone who works in a bar? If so, does the smoke bother you/them?
I work in a pub, and while i smoke, having second hand smoke blown in your face isn't that nice. People should be allowed to smoke i guess, just not at the bar.

Chris.

Originally posted by max
Big difference between working in a hazardous environment and one which will kill you, I would have thought. In one, safety measures can reduce the risk, in the other you die.

Bigger worries than dying from second hand smoke?:loopy: Name a few, please.


Lets not sensationalise. Exposure to second hand smoke can hardly be said to yield a 100% death rate now, can it?

Originally posted by max
Big difference between working in a hazardous environment and one which will kill you, I would have thought. In one, safety measures can reduce the risk, in the other you die.

Bigger worries than dying from second hand smoke?:loopy: Name a few, please.

And what exactly is an environment that could kill you, if it is not hazardous??? There are plenty of jobs that will kill you before 2nd hand smoke will.
If you work in a building site you get made to wear a hardhat, if you work in a bar, you have a sign saying 'no smoking at the bar'. Both are reducing the risks at work - I dont really get your point?

Bigger worries - if youre in a situation that means you are forced to take a job you dont want to because of smoke, then I would have thought you would have lots of worries, like putting food on the table, feeding and clothing your family if you had one, paying rent / mortgage / debts etc.

Probably not relevent this, but the incidence of child asthma has risen whilst the non smoking areas on buses/buildings has risen. This coincides with the rise in traffic whilst number of smokers has fallen.

Just a thought. I'll butt out now.

Originally posted by markham
Probably not relevent this, but the incidence of child asthma has risen whilst the non smoking areas on buses/buildings has risen. This coincides with the rise in traffic whilst number of smokers has fallen.

Just a thought. I'll butt out now.
Thank you all who have brought similar points up about the amount of rubbish cars and transport chuck out into our atmosphere!
You can complain that smokers are polluting themselves, thats our business and you can moan all you like about secondary smoke, I for one do not go around blowing smoke into other people's faces, but collectively as a species smokers and non-smokers alike we're doing a bloody good job of polluting everyone and wrecking the atmosphere and in doing so wrecking everyone's health.
By nature we're self destructive, if we dont smoke too much we drink too much or we eat too much of the wrong things or we completely destroy our living environment thus spoiling the lives of future generations.
There are more important issues than secondary smoke!

Originally posted by Mosherchik


There are more important issues than secondary smoke!

Smokers are desperate people - They make me laugh. :D

They will introduce any argument to justify their harmful habit.

Most people do not smoke.

Let them list the benefits of smoking. :D

It was a valid comment that was made about working in bars - I believe that in many places the air conditioning 'back of house' is better than front of house nowadays, so the problem, though still present, is not what it once was. The best known case of someone dying from cancer after working in such places was probably the TV presenter / musician Roy Castle who linked his cancer to the years spent playing gigs in smokey clubs.

As to the person who commented that I wouldn't need Viagra - damn right! If my plumbing gets a bit wobbly as I creep in to old age, so be it.

I find secondary smoke offensive in the same way I find a bonfire or smoke frm a barbecue drifting in to my home offensive. I would think that the carcinogens I inhale from the bonfire or barbecue are probably just as nasty as those from smoke. The aforementioned 10u particles from diesel engines are nasty because they're just the right size to lodge in the lungs and keep whatever nasties they carry in contact with you for longer, and as the jury is still out on pulsed microwaves from mobile phones, we may find eventually that there's a larger health issue there than we think.

I do have a right to avoid other people's smoke, but I'm not going to be prissy and 'right on' about it. If folks want to carry on with their addiction then that's OK with me. I'll work to remove myself from their presence whenever I can, and live dangerously occasionally by going to a smokey pub. But the point I was trying to make is that when I travel out and about today, I'll be getting the crap from cars, buses, mobile phones, potentially God knows what in my drinking water and food and I cannot avoid those!

Cheers m'dears!

Joe

Originally posted by t020
If it bothered them enough they could always not work there. Yea... great idea. In fact lets bring back asbestos mines and sending children under spinning jennies. After all - it's their choice!:loopy:

As for engine emissions, hasn't anybody spotted the considerable efforts that have been happening in the last 10 years to reduce these - even to the point of getting virtually all old cars off the roads by introducing tight legislation??:confused: It's not in the slightest bit a comparable. :loopy:

Originally posted by Tony
Yea... great idea. In fact lets bring back asbestos mines and sending children under spinning jennies. After all - it's their choice!:loopy:

As for engine emissions, hasn't anybody spotted the considerable efforts that have been happening in the last 10 years to reduce these - even to the point of getting virtually all old cars off the roads by introducing tight legislation??:confused: It's not in the slightest bit a comparable. :loopy:

While emission control in cars is plainly a good thing, any benefits have been wiped out by the growth in car numbers. There are now 50% more cars on UK roads than in 1983. In another 20 years that figure is expected to increase by a similar amount. So, emission control amounts to nothing more than running hard to stay in the same place. Bring on electric and solar cars!

(I do realise that if we'd had no emission control at all, things would be much worse, BTW)

Mojo: not a greenie

You make a very good point in that we often neeed to make big changes to stand still, though hopefully over time it will improve matters.

It shows the importance of big decisions that some people won't like (for personal reasons usually), but that are for the collective good. Things do take time though.

Who would be a politician eh?

Originally posted by Yorkie
Smokers are desperate people - They make me laugh. :D

Nice to know I brought a bit of sunshine into your life :D
They will introduce any argument to justify their harmful habit.
I wasnt justifying my habit at all, if you read the post I state I know I am polluting myself, but thats my business. But as far as Im concerned theres a lot more things far worse than secondary smoke!
Most people do not smoke.
Maybe, but again as I said before... Most people drink too much and eat too much of the wrong things... are we all so blameless? are all these I hate breathing in fumes people nuns?
Let them list the benefits of smoking. :D
There are none that I am aware... apart from it keeps the wasps away in the summer :thumbsup:
Dont rain on my parade and I wont blow smoke on yours! :D

Originally posted by Mosherchik


I wasnt justifying my habit at all, if you read the post I state I know I am polluting myself, but thats my business.

Remember that if you need hospital staff to remove your lung.

Originally posted by Sidla
Well that's certainly a perspective that could be looked at. I've lost count of the number of people I've heard complaining about H&S regulations being too OTT in this day and age.

No doubt there were people in every age saying similar things. What do you think the Victorian mill owners said about such 'new' inovations as child labour laws?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Although its many years since I filled in a claim form I remember you can put in the type of work you are looking for - if you have that much of a problem with smoking you could simply indicate you arent looking for bar work?

The rules have been tightened since then. After six months you have to be prepared to take any sort of work or loose benefits.

Just a quick question for all those smokers out there who find they are strugling to pay for their cigarettes; what do you think the annual income is of the CEO of a major tobacco comapny?

Go on have a guess. I'll give you a clue, it is likely to be higher than yours.

Here's another question; how many top tobacco executives smoke themselves. You may be suprised by the answer.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I've never smoked in my life

Of course you have. There is no such thing as a genuine non-smoker because of passive smoking. That is what this thread is all about. It really is quite simple either everybody is smoking or everybody is not smoking.

Originally posted by slimsid2000



How many top tobacco executives smoke themselves. You may be suprised by the answer.



None - They're not stupid. :D

Originally posted by mojoworking
While emission control in cars is plainly a good thing, any benefits have been wiped out by the growth in car numbers. There are now 50% more cars on UK roads than in 1983. In another 20 years that figure is expected to increase by a similar amount. So, emission control amounts to nothing more than running hard to stay in the same place. Bring on electric and solar cars!

(I do realise that if we'd had no emission control at all, things would be much worse, BTW)

Mojo: not a greenie

Although I take the point about cars being a sourse of pollution there is a difference because a car has many benefits too. The same cannot be said of cigarettes. As I have said before the only people who benefit from cigarettes are the owners of the tobacco companies.

My own views on passive smoking are that historically there has been far too much weight given to smokers' arguments about their so called rights and too little to protecting non-smokers.

Although there have been some welcome changes in recent years things still haven't moved far enough in the direction of non-smokers.

The basic problem I have with the arguments of smokers is that they feel it should be up to them whether or not I as a non-smoker should be protected, whereas I feel it should be up to me. I have never yet been in a pub, bar,club, etc where somebody has gone around everyone present (including strangers) and asked if they mind them smoking. For this reason I believe government should act and ban smoking from public places. Remember, even then you will still be able to smoke in your own home, car etc so it is hardly a total ban.

Voting update... Well after 55 votes there is a measley 25% who think it's ok as it is ... and that includes 20% of very tolerant non smokers!

Originally posted by slimsid2000
My own view on passive smoking are that historically there has been far too much weight given to smokers' arguments about their so called rights and too little to protecting non-smokers.

There has been no historical debate on this issue as it's only in the last few decades that the health affects of smoking have been widely publicised and only in the last decade has smoking become less and less socially acceptable.

One point I cannot stress enough in this debate is that I am in favour of a ban on smoking in public, not a ban on smoking. Afterall, there are many things which we cannot do in public but are perfectly ok in private.

i am a smoker,and quite a heavy one too.

i try where possible not to smoke in the presence of non smokers when out and about,and always either move or put it out if requested.

would a ban on smoking in public include driving your car?

fine in the street or on trains buses planes etc i could live with that,but i love a fag when driving:D

Originally posted by gizmo
i am a smoker,and quite a heavy one too.

i try where possible not to smoke in the presence of non smokers when out and about,and always either move or put it out if requested.

would a ban on smoking in public include driving your car?

fine in the street or on trains buses planes etc i could live with that,but i love a fag when driving:D

i notice that the some of the 2004 Vauxhall models don't have ashtrays, but do have cigarette lighters. could always use the floor, I suppose.

im a smoker who is considerate to other people. or i at least like to think i am! lol

personally i wouldnt want to go for a nite out with friends where i have to keep going outside in the rain and the cold to have a cigarette and im sure many people would feel the same.

so what about the business that would lose alot of money and possibly be forced to close because they cannot keep their places open through lose of profit??
im surre people will say this wont happen but look at the recent experiment.they lost to much money and had to reinstate it.

simple solution is have seperate rooms for smokers and non smokers.then everyone has a choice and people can stop bloody moanin!!

Originally posted by Killian
i notice that the some of the 2004 Vauxhall models don't have ashtrays, but do have cigarette lighters. could always use the floor, I suppose.

I already do Killian,i usually hoover it out when the pile reaches about 3 inches high lol

Smokers should see their Doctor for good advice and help.

When you get lung disease it's too late and your family will miss you. :D

Originally posted by gizmo
I already do Killian,i usually hoover it out when the pile reaches about 3 inches high lol

good idea. wait till the floor's full and then use the ashtrays :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Killian
good idea. wait till the floor's full and then use the ashtrays :thumbsup:

The car ashtray is usually a good source of long tab ends when your desperate:thumbsup:

why would it involve your car, do you invite the general public to sit in your passenger seat?

that recent experiment involved a single bar. If all bars had to do this at the same time there would be minimal or no loss of income. I can hardly see most smokers staying in on a saturday night for a cigarette rather than going for a drink with their friends.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I can hardly see most smokers staying in on a saturday night for a cigarette rather than going for a drink with their friends.

I think you underestimate the cravings which these poor, poor people suffer under their addiction. These poor, misunderstood addicts think nothing of exposing their friends to passive smoking so I'd guess that yes, they probably would prefer to stay in on a Saturday night rather than go cold turkey to be with their friends.

I think many smokers genuinely believe they are doing enough to be considerate when clearly they are not. I am struck by the number of smokers who consider themselves considerate yet resent something as simple as going outside for a fag.

I think there is a gulf of perseption in what smokers and non-smokers consider to be proper protection from passive smoking. Let me give you a very simple defenition: proper protection is when non-smokers are not exposed to any smoke any of the time. I'm afraid too many smokers consider half measures to be enough.

well cyclone i think u r wrong many smokers would think twice before goin out on a saturday nite,maybe not as much if they jus goin to a pub as there you can go outside for a ciggie.
but what about the many people that go to nightclubs in there you cant jus nip in and out as you please.i kno that i couldnt go 3 or 4 hours without a cigerette.so i wouldnt be payin £10 to get in any where,

slimsid i dont resent goin outside for a cigerette as i do this quite often enough already.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think many smokers genuinely believe they are doing enough to be considerate when clearly they are not. I am struck by the number of smokers who consider themselves considerate yet resent something as simple as going outside for a fag.


Why dont you go outside when someone feels like a fag? Non-smokers are the ones causing all the hassle IMHO

And before you start, I dont even smoke anymore - just cant seem to kick the habit of 'indignant non-smoker bashing' :D

I've just been trying to point out that maybe you need to look at yourself before going on your crusade - If it means that much to you then you stop going out, and stop thinking that the world owes you.
Noone likes smoke blown in their face, so say something if it bothers you, dont just jump in and ban smoking. If someone burns a hole in your shirt with a fag end then that is careless and you should be angry - Just like when someone spills red wine on you and ruins your shirt. Your first thought there is not to ban red wine is it?
If a place is too smokey, then leave - it was smokey before you get there, so why should it change just because you have arrived?

Originally posted by Cyclone
why would it involve your car, do you invite the general public to sit in your passenger seat?



er, the car bit was meant to be a bit of light relief - fagash on the floor, remember that? - wasted, obviously.

Originally posted by floyd77
Why dont you go outside when someone feels like a fag? Non-smokers are the ones causing all the hassle IMHO

And before you start, I dont even smoke anymore - just cant seem to kick the habit of 'indignant non-smoker bashing' :D

I've just been trying to point out that maybe you need to look at yourself before going on your crusade - If it means that much to you then you stop going out, and stop thinking that the world owes you.
Noone likes smoke blown in their face, so say something if it bothers you, dont just jump in and ban smoking. If someone burns a hole in your shirt with a fag end then that is careless and you should be angry - Just like when someone spills red wine on you and ruins your shirt. Your first thought there is not to ban red wine is it?
If a place is too smokey, then leave - it was smokey before you get there, so why should it change just because you have arrived?

So your solution is to make all places where someone might smoke basically offlimit to non-smokers who don't want to be poisoned. You don't see anything wrong in that sentiment?

I really can't be bothered to carry on arguing about this. I've stated quite clearly how it all boils down to the rights of both groups. And there has to be a decision whether the right to smoke and inflict that on others takes precedence over the right not to be harmed by smokers, or vice versa.

You can't go for 3 or 4 hours without a cigarette, I'm glad I don't live in your hell.

Sorry missed the humourous reference re the car thing.

i dont live in hell cyclone.
i have gone many a time for 3 or 4 hours without a cigarette but not when im out socialising and havin a drink.when im having a drink i like to have a cigarette too.

im sure you have vices too!!

I think we should just build a big wall down the middle of the country, like in old Germany. Anyone who's a non-smoker and wants nothing to do with tobacco can go and live on one side. Smokers, or people who couldn't care less, can go and live on the other side. This way, all the moaners are on the non-smoking side and everyone can live in harmony on the smoking side.

Problem solved. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Cyclone
Sorry missed the humourous reference re the car thing.

forgiven. this smoking argument has obviously stressed you out. solution: have a ciggy and chill out. sod the non smokers

hell, i'll skip the ciggy, put a gun to my head and blow my brains out.

But wait, I won't do it alone, i'll get a whole bunch of non gun-to-headers to stand in a line next to me, call it passive suicide.

I do have vices, non of them involve slowly killing myself and taking everyone who happens to be near me along for the ride.
One vice that I ought to give up is arguing with people who refuse to see another persons point of view.

trouble is cyclone i see ur view im not sayin you should have to sit in our smoke.if someone asked me not to smoke then i wouldnt!

trouble is its as simple as seperating the two groups in different rooms.that way no one has cause to moan but even then some of you are not happy the only thing that will make some non smoking moaners happy is if it is outlawed altogether.

drink kills many people every year but i dont hear people screamin bout that to be banned!!

I already agreed previously that seperate rooms would be fine, although actually more difficult to legislate for and enforce. I've no problem with smokers per se and anyway that we can all have a drink without infringing on each other is fine by me.
There is no such thing as passive drinking, that's why no one is screaming about it. If you start forcing people to drink just because they are near you, i'm sure they'd object.

Originally posted by Sidla
I think we should just build a big wall down the middle of the country, like in old Germany. Anyone who's a non-smoker and wants nothing to do with tobacco can go and live on one side. Smokers, or people who couldn't care less, can go and live on the other side. This way, all the moaners are on the non-smoking side and everyone can live in harmony on the smoking side.

Problem solved. :thumbsup:

I think you've got it the wrong way round Sid, the moaners would be all on the smokers' side as smokers seem to be the biggest whingers and moaners about infringing their rights by asking them not to smoke in public places.:D

im not menain it by a way of someone forcing drink down someone else,i mean that people have died cos of someone else drinking same way as you are on about its killin you cos people around you smoke.

any law that is brought in is going to be hard to enforce jus because they say you cant do it doesnt mean people are not goin to do it.so whats the difference between enforcin seperate rooms and enforcin a ban altogether.

but i do agree that you should not have to be exposed to our smoke,if you do not want to be xx

Originally posted by max
I think you've got it the wrong way round Sid, the moaners would be all on the smokers' side as smokers seem to be the biggest whingers and moaners about infringing their rights by asking them not to smoke in public places.:D
But that wouldn't occur since nobody would give a toss if you're smoking or not on the smoke side.

Originally posted by Sidla
But that wouldn't occur since nobody would give a toss if you're smoking or not on the smoke side.

Of course it would, they'd all be moaning that they couldn't smoke in the other room and how it was an infringement of their god given rights.

There wouldn't be any non-smoking parts on the smoking side.

no they wouldnt be moanin about that,wouldnt have no reason to moan would they,have you not noticed that the majority of the people that moan are the non smokers?!

Originally posted by starla
no they wouldnt be moanin about that,wouldnt have no reason to moan would they,have you not noticed that the majority of the people that moan are the non smokers?!

Pay attention, the biggest whingers are the ones who are complaining that their right to smoke anywhere they want will be infringed. Please keep up.:loopy:

well i dont believe i can smoke any where i like or that my rights are being infringed because of it. plenty of places you cant smoke but i dont moan about it i jus get on with what iv gotta do.

so thats one smoker that dont apply to your theory xx

Originally posted by max
Of course it would, they'd all be moaning that they couldn't smoke in the other room and how it was an infringement of their god given rights.

A bit like youre moaning that its an infringement of your god given rights that we smoke in public places?

99% of smokers dont care about going outside for a fag - I even did it at home to stop my girlfriend moaning. What we dont like is that we have to go outside everywhere, and pubs will be the final insult, all because of - wait for it - MOANING, from people like you.

Just a quick point, how many people, barring roy castle, do you know to have suffered from passive smoking? Now how many have suffered from drinking - family brakeup, job loss, family death through alocoholism, been beaten up by a drunken yob, had windows smashed by drunk kids, been effected by drunk driving???

Please, feel free to sit in a non-smokey part of the pub - if your pub doesnt have one then why do you want to be there, most do.

thanks flloyd for see in the point i was tryin to make when i mentioned drink x

Originally posted by floyd77
A bit like youre moaning that its an infringement of your god given rights that we smoke in public places?

99% of smokers dont care about going outside for a fag - I even did it at home to stop my girlfriend moaning. What we dont like is that we have to go outside everywhere, and pubs will be the final insult, all because of - wait for it - MOANING, from people like you.

Just a quick point, how many people, barring roy castle, do you know to have suffered from passive smoking? Now how many have suffered from drinking - family brakeup, job loss, family death through alocoholism, been beaten up by a drunken yob, had windows smashed by drunk kids, been effected by drunk driving???

Please, feel free to sit in a non-smokey part of the pub - if your pub doesnt have one then why do you want to be there, most do.

I'd check out my facts before becoming yet another whinging, moaning smoker. As opposed to smokers like me, that is. I consider myself a smoker who just isn't smoking now but will when I go on holiday.:loopy:

thought of another point whilst I was out having a run (didn't see many smokers whilst I was doing that).

I already have the right not to be poisoned by you. It's covered in many laws.
On the other hand, there is no law that says you are allowed to smoke....

Originally posted by starla
i kno that i couldnt go 3 or 4 hours without a cigerette.



I've gone 33 years without one (excluding passive smoking of course). Surley a few hours won't kill you.

Originally posted by floyd77
Why dont you go outside when someone feels like a fag? Non-smokers are the ones causing all the hassle IMHO

And before you start, I dont even smoke anymore - just cant seem to kick the habit of 'indignant non-smoker bashing' :D

I've just been trying to point out that maybe you need to look at yourself before going on your crusade - If it means that much to you then you stop going out, and stop thinking that the world owes you.
Noone likes smoke blown in their face, so say something if it bothers you, dont just jump in and ban smoking. If someone burns a hole in your shirt with a fag end then that is careless and you should be angry - Just like when someone spills red wine on you and ruins your shirt. Your first thought there is not to ban red wine is it?
If a place is too smokey, then leave - it was smokey before you get there, so why should it change just because you have arrived?

Non smoking is the norm. Nobody is born with a fag in their mouth and these days three quaters of us don't smoke. Why should non-smokers have to live like hermits in order to protect their own health. Surley protection of one's health is a right we should all expect.

Originally posted by starla
i dont live in hell cyclone.
i have gone many a time for 3 or 4 hours without a cigarette but not when im out socialising and havin a drink.when im having a drink i like to have a cigarette too.

im sure you have vices too!!

I'm sure we all do but we don't all inflict them on others. This is about PASSIVE smoking, not smoking as such.

In a previous post I likened somebody's description of smoking as 'self pollution' to self abuse. Imagian the scenario:

" Does anybody mind if I w***"?

Nobody likes to object for fear of being labeled a killjoy, Little Hitler etc etc etc.

There follow several dirty looks from strangers in the bar and lots of muttering under breath. Still, he continues with his habbit and talks loudly about his rights and freedoms and how all this Nanny State business has gone too far. Eventually a barman comes up;

"I'm sorry Sir, but this is a non-w****ing area. The w***ing area is through those doors over there".

Originally posted by starla
trouble is cyclone i see ur view im not sayin you should have to sit in our smoke.if someone asked me not to smoke then i wouldnt!



If a complete stranger came up to you in any public place and asked you not to smoke would you really oblige?

Originally posted by floyd77

Just a quick point, how many people, barring roy castle, do you know to have suffered from passive smoking?


I think the figures are about 15,000 deaths a year as a result of passive smoking. Obviously, because these are not famous people like Roy Castle they don't make the news.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think the figures are about 15,000 deaths a year as a result of passive smoking. Obviously, because these are not famous people like Roy Castle they don't make the news.

If you want to talk figures - we can talk figures. I asked how many do you know? It sounds harsh, but 15000 is not a high figure, and how do we know its a direct result of passive smoking, not that there were exisiting health problems. There is great debate about this.
Do a bit of reasearch and compare this to the drink driving figures, the alcoholism figures and how many lives have been destroyed that way.
You dont get to choose whether or not a member of your family is an alky - you get to choose where to sit in the pub though.

This may sound harsh to all you out there - but get a life, dont you have anything better to worry about. Cant smoke at work, cant smoke on a bus, cant smoke in a restaurant - can ONLY smoke in a pub. What more do you want. Smokers dont seek you out to blow smoke at you

Originally posted by floyd77
If you want to talk figures - we can talk figures. I asked how many do you know? It sounds harsh, but 15000 is not a high figure, and how do we know its a direct result of passive smoking, not that there were exisiting health problems. There is great debate about this.
Do a bit of reasearch and compare this to the drink driving figures, the alcoholism figures and how many lives have been destroyed that way.
You dont get to choose whether or not a member of your family is an alky - you get to choose where to sit in the pub though.

This may sound harsh to all you out there - but get a life, dont you have anything better to worry about. Cant smoke at work, cant smoke on a bus, cant smoke in a restaurant - can ONLY smoke in a pub. What more do you want. Smokers dont seek you out to blow smoke at you

Astonisingly you say 15,000 is not a high figure but if that number of people died in plane crashes every year there would be some serious questions asked about the aviation industry.

I don't know why you think I am in favour of drink driving or alcoholism. I am not. As far as I know I never intimated I was. Just because these things kill is hardly an argument for passive smoking.

Also, you seem rather put out about existing smoking restrictions. Just where exactly do you think non-smokers should be entitled to protection? Anywhere?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I've gone 33 years without one (excluding passive smoking of course). Surley a few hours won't kill you.

that is because you dont smoke so you dont kno the feelin unless you use to smoke that is. n if you had read the post properly you would see that i meant that in a case of if i went out to a club or what ever when im havin a drink. that is not some where i can jus pop out for one x

Originally posted by slimsid2000
If a complete stranger came up to you in any public place and asked you not to smoke would you really oblige?

yes i would i was brought up to have respect for others and if someone asked me not to i wouldnt.i would go outside or not bother at all.im not the kind of person that would jus think oh sod him and light up!!! xx

Originally posted by starla
that is because you dont smoke so you dont kno the feelin unless you use to smoke that is. n if you had read the post properly you would see that i meant that in a case of if i went out to a club or what ever when im havin a drink. that is not some where i can jus pop out for one x

So go without then. That is always an option.

Originally posted by starla
yes i would i was brought up to have respect for others and if someone asked me not to i wouldnt.i would go outside or not bother at all.im not the kind of person that would jus think oh sod him and light up!!! xx

That's good to hear. Unfortunately most smokers are not considerate to that extent. That is why legislation is needed.

It's not fair to expect people who don't like cigarette smoke to go around every smoker in a pub and ask them to stop.
There may be a few as polite as yourself, but before you'd got around half the pub you'd end up defending this argument physically.
Maybe then we could argue that their face was infringing on my right to wave my fists around wherever I like. Call it passively being punched in their cigarette hole ;)

SS2K - could you not just write one big post?

The difference between PASSIVE smoking and alchoholism are who is dying right. I don't care if every smoker in the country goes out right now and smokes themselves to death in the next half hour. Nor if every alcoholic drinks themselves to death. I do care if the alchoholic comes up to me in the pub and tries to make me join in, unfortunately with the smoker I have no choice in the matter.

if i die from cancer will there be conclusive evidence that i had it because i smoked??
if you die from cancer will there be conclusive evidence that PASSIVE SMOKING caused it??

Originally posted by Cyclone
One vice that I ought to give up is arguing with people who refuse to see another persons point of view.

problem is everyone has widely different views on this subject. I'm a non-smoker, but smoking honestly doesn't bother me. i never think about it when i'm out apart from chosing a non-smoking area in a restaurant, which is only sensible, and i can't say that i'm subjected to passive smoking to such an extent that it will damage my health, although time will tell of course. when in company i tend not to notice who is smoking as its not something which is always on my mind. others, however, are obsessed by it and clearly they have their own reasons for this.

Originally posted by starla
if i die from cancer will there be conclusive evidence that i had it because i smoked??
if you die from cancer will there be conclusive evidence that PASSIVE SMOKING caused it??

on an individual basis, no of course not.

It's when you look at the statistics that you get a sensible picture.

you study the cause of death for a group of non-smokers who's profile indicated little to know passive smoking.

you study the cause of death for a group of non-smokers who's profile indicated moderate to strong passive smoking.

same for light smokers

same for heavy smokers

you make sure there are no other common factors between the groups that can skew the results (Ie that the individuals are truly a random cross section, or that you account for things like different health styles in area's you are not interested in).

You then compare the % that died from lung cancer in each group.

You now have scientific evidence which gives a strong indication of how lung cancer correlates to different levels of active and passive smoking.

I'm only strongly concerned about this in an intellectual way. When the argument was first brought to my attention my immediate reaction was that smokers have the right to smoke. It took a little while before I decided the other way. It hasn't stopped me going to any pubs or bars, although I am always upset if smoke drifts over me in a restuarant.
It just so happens that the demographic that form most of my social contact happen to smoke very little. Either graduates or students and a large portion either actively training or ex-training in at least one martial art, or otherwise concerned about their general health.
Even at work there are very few smokers as most people are graduates and the average age is probably quite low compared to some companies.

There's strong evidence that cancer's as much genetic as it is about lifestyle.

if you are trying to suggest that smoking does not cause cancer then you are living in lala land.

Originally posted by starla
if i die from cancer will there be conclusive evidence that i had it because i smoked??
if you die from cancer will there be conclusive evidence that PASSIVE SMOKING caused it??
Are you going to die to prove the point? I'm certainly not!

Originally posted by Tony
Are you going to die to prove the point? I'm certainly not!

y do i need to die to prove the point all i asked was is there conclusive evidence of it??
end of the day your gona die no matter what!

the last thing i heard and it was in the papers was that passive smokin was not as bad as they 1st thought!

and as sidla says cancer is alot to do with genetics! not jus because someone sat near you is smokin! xx

So does that justify you having the easily preventable opportunity to reduce my lifespan?

I would quite happily go with the accepted professional opinion that its bad for you than argue the toss about semantics and genetics.

I have no problem at all with you having a hermatically sealed room to enjoy your dance of death.

I don't know if I should be in this thread, as I'm currently having a lovely fag, so you'd best hold your breath while you read this! ^_^

I actually agree, smoking is anti-social. I wish I didn't. But I do. So incidentally is my friend who is an ex heroin addict - he kicked heroin but he can't kick smoking.

I'd favour an outright ban. Make the stuff illegal

Originally posted by Cyclone
if you are trying to suggest that smoking does not cause cancer then you are living in lala land.
No, I was trying to suggest that some people are genetically more likely to develop cancer than others.

fair enough, and completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by starla
y do i need to die to prove the point all i asked was is there conclusive evidence of it??
end of the day your gona die no matter what!

the last thing i heard and it was in the papers was that passive smokin was not as bad as they 1st thought!

and as sidla says cancer is alot to do with genetics! not jus because someone sat near you is smokin! xx

Who is it that makes these claims? FOREST? The tobacco companies? In other words the very people who spent years trying to argue that smoking has no adverse health effects at all.

How much credence should be given to their 'research'?

I actually waded through all the 12 previous pages of this thread. The general pattern being that the smokers seem far more tolerant of the non smokers, whereas the anti-smokers appear to be spreading doom and gloom.
Personally, I've smoked for around fifty-five years, with no adverse affects (So Far). I'm not very good at speed walking up steep hills, but that is due to aching joints, and tired old bones.
Just lately, I have noticed one or two statisticians being honest, and one has even written a book about the way that statistics can be massaged into shape, to fit any argument.
I don't smoke anywhere where there is a no smoking sign.
A good rule of thumb is wether there are ashtrays prominent.
I avoid the places with "No Smoking" signs, so I would assume that the rabid anti-smokers would avoid places with ashtrays in prominent positions. To walk into such a place, being it Pub, Club, or restaurant, and then start objecting to people smoking, I would class as unreasonable provocation.
As to the employees of such a place, under HSE laws, it is the duty of the Employer to provide PPE to the employees.
That's Personal Protective Equipment. So I suggest that the poor misguided people who mistakenly take a job in a smoking establishment (Is that possible?) ask for a biological warfare suit, with a self contained breathing apparatus.
There is really no need to carry on this argument, as the govenment seems hell bent on banning smoking as much as possible. I'm glad I'm old.
I heard Tom Conti this morning, commenting on the fact that as a child, almost everyone in his family were heavy smokers. Often with four or five people smoking in the same room as the children were playing in. He could not recall anyone in his extended family dying of a smoking related disease. He too thought that cancer was a genetic inheritence that could be aggravated by smoking.
As for no beneficially uses of tobacco? Has anyone noticed the rise in "Air Rage" incidents, since airlines went all non smoking?
No friends, this government can't even stamp out people smuggling, or run an efficient health service.
You non smokers will never know the pleasure of a smoke after a good meal, with early morning coffee, or lying back gazing at the ceiling after an energetic session in bed.

it's easy to be tolerant when you're the one with the offensive habit.

that's like (if for example) I farted alot and turned around and said that I was far more tolerant of non farting people than they were of me!

And since there are no non-smoking pubs in the centre, you'd have me not go to any since smokers can't go for an hour or two without a fix.

i'd be quite happy if a mixture of smoking and non smoking venues could be created, but that would be impossible to administrate, and non-smoking sections don't work.

Originally posted by Cyclone
It just so happens that the demographic that form most of my social contact happen to smoke very little. Either graduates or students and a large portion either actively training or ex-training in at least one martial art, or otherwise concerned about their general health.
Even at work there are very few smokers as most people are graduates and the average age is probably quite low compared to some companies.

So the answer is to avoid old and/or thick/idle people, then you should be ok :)

Originally posted by nick2
So the answer is to avoid old and/or thick/idle people, then you should be ok :)

I must have said that quite some time ago, I only vaguely remember it.

So, if you can point me to the pub/bar where only young, active and clever people are allowed in I'll happily go for a drink there.

I've actually found that the beer garden at the interval is quite good. It's a student bar anyway, so less smokers than average (i suspect) and it's a big garden, so plenty of room to keep away from the smokers who are there.

Cyclone - - - It would appear to be all Me, Me, Me in your arguments. Find your own places of enjoyment, don't spout on about changing other peoples

Originally posted by Cyclone
It's a student bar anyway, so less smokers than average (i suspect)

You see, I dissagree with that, I think students have an above average number of smokers, and it's mainly down to them being young, when I was younger nearly all my mates (and I) smoked like chimneys, now we are in our 30's none of us do.

Originally posted by sheffco

Just lately, I have noticed one or two statisticians being honest, and one has even written a book about the way that statistics can be massaged into shape, to fit any argument.


How is this relevant? Unless you have proof the scientists have done this then this is really irrelevant to any argument about evidence of smoking (passive or otherwise) and cancer.

on the flip side I have to pay a lot of money for fags and you guys get my smoke for free. IO want reparation :D :)

Nightrider
Whoever mentioned Scientists? Although a professor at The Royal Marsden was quoted as saying he had never seen a case of cancer caused by passive smoking.
Roy Castle, bless him, would have been older than me, and as such, and being raised in the industrial north would have been subjected to the poisonous atmosphere at an early age.
Sheffield "Smog" was a greenish yellow with a sulphorous taste. I walked to school (St Vincents) on Solly Street, by way of Townhead Street. There was a Bus Garage at the bottom, opposite Hollis Croft. The buses would be parked up the length of townhead street, engines running, to warm up. I actually liked the smell and taste of the deisel fumes.
It was well known at the time, that the new fangled man-made fibre, "Nylon", would melt due to what we now know to have been acid rain.
Miners disease, asbestosis, dust disease from grinding and buffing are all easily hung on the peg of "Smoking Related", and cost less in compensation.
As I said, I'm glad I'm old.
The nannie state is breeding a nation of wimps, allergy prone, and lacking in the common sense to keep themselves out of danger. The last smoke I have, will be up the crematorium chimney

I smoke but don't have any problem with a smoking ban. I think people should be entitled to a smoke-free atmosphere. At the end of the day, a person can choose to smoke, but if a smoker smokes near a non-smoker the non-smoker has no choice but to breathe the smokers smoke. In my opinion that should be reversed, a smoker should have to move away from non-smokers before he lights up.

But people have a smoke free atmosphere. The great outside!
I choose to smoke, and I purposely choose places where smoking is permitted. I don't go into places with a no smoking policy. I already banned myself from cinemas, theatres, libraries and museums. I tolerate public transport both road and rail when absolutely necessary.
It's plain, the future belongs to the youth of today.
"A" level exams are about the equivelant of my "Eleven Plus".
The majority of posts appear to come from students,so they have a simple solution. Join the union, force a referendum, ban smoking in the student facilities (Bars). They shouldn't be able to afford the bars and clubs in the town centre, unless daddy is paying.
Smoke, you may never have to pay off the student debt!

Originally posted by sheffco
Nightrider
Whoever mentioned Scientists? Although a professor at The Royal Marsden was quoted as saying he had never seen a case of cancer caused by passive smoking.


so what? Thats anecdotal.

I grew up in a house with 2 chainsmoking parents.
As a result I have a chronic chest & a very poor spirometry.

I don't mind smokers I just wish they wouldn't exhale :D

I see from today's headlines, that smokers are to become the target for spot fines etc. Another fund raising exercise for the Councils. As for you poor bronchial cases, "Is it Catching"?? I object to people coughing and spluttering in my proximity.
The rise in Asthma sufferers?? Are all these children brought up in "Chain Smoking" Households? There is a theory that they live in such oversanitised households, they get attacked by every known germ, the moment they step into our pure fresh air. It's easy to attribute anything "Bronchial" to some kind of smoking related cause.
I think you should all buy yourselve's some of those Eco-Spheres to walk round in. Don't go to hospital with your chest problems. You could expire with MRSA, and be put down as a smoking related casualty. Or "Do Not Resusc" as in my case.
Spot Fines? When will the council put an ash tray bin, next to the litter bins? Smokers take note. If you drop your fag end in a litter bin, you could be charged with Arson when all the greasy food wrappings ignite.
A couple of hot tips!
Smoking definitely suppresses the appetite (Figure concious).
You don't see many smokers with Acne! (Don't know why)
A cigarette takes approx 7 minutes to smoke (Can't afford a timer)
Cigarette smoking seems to keep away all those annoying professional whingers who approach you with petitions etc.
It allows you to walk along Campo Lane and pick out the best looking Solicitors (Legal), as they all stand outside releiving their anxieties.
I used to have a high powered job, but as a chain smoker, they installed a cooker hood over my desk, and I had a sign on my door (Single Office) You are entering a smoke filled zone.
Surprising how many people hung around in my office. Never got any work done, but I was very popular. Can't get a job now, would have to get a wireless computer and do all my work on the steps outside (80 plus per day).
Ban smoking? It's a joke - I know a shopping Mall, where smoking is banned. Apart from the couple of snack bars that do a roaring trade in people having a fag in the open-plan caffeteria section. Take a look in castle market food section, a couple of good snack bars there.
Ban sex - - - Hiv costs far more to treat than lung cancer.
Ban NHS hospitals until they sort out MRSA.
Ban Immigration, a major source of little known diseases and cost to the tax-payers.
Do as I do, and avoid places where you are likely to encounter people of opposing views (Smokers) and if you won't? suffer in silence.

Originally posted by sheffco
Cyclone - - - It would appear to be all Me, Me, Me in your arguments. Find your own places of enjoyment, don't spout on about changing other peoples

are smokers the only ones with rights then? I don't get any?

Originally posted by Cyclone
a nice balanced generalisation there. Smokers are selfish disgusting people!

I don't think you can be that harsh. They're just doing something they enjoy. I'd just like to be able to go to the pub and not have to wash my clothes/hair afterwards because i stink. It is pretty antisocial behaviour. I'm all for banning smoking in ENCLOSED public spaces. Afterall, what if I decided to take up inhaling cyanide gas? I could quite easily do that in a public place and kill a few people. :D

Originally posted by tim_rutter
I don't think you can be that harsh. They're just doing something they enjoy. I'd just like to be able to go to the pub and not have to wash my clothes/hair afterwards because i stink. It is pretty antisocial behaviour. I'm all for banning smoking in ENCLOSED public spaces. Afterall, what if I decided to take up inhaling cyanide gas? I could quite easily do that in a public place and kill a few people. :D

is this 'pick a quote' day? I was clearly responding to the previous post to mine which said this;

Originally posted by fittdiva
well i hope that the government ban it from public places. Its in everones best interest and smokers are selfish disgusting ppl.

It's not my opinion, it's sarcasm. I wish people wouldn't quote me out of context without explaining.

Originally posted by Cyclone
is this 'pick a quote' day? I was clearly responding to the previous post to mine which said this;



It's not my opinion, it's sarcasm. I wish people wouldn't quote me out of context without explaining.

Sorry in my haste I quoted you instead of the original poster whom you were quoting.

Originally posted by Yorkie
Smokers should see their Doctor for good advice and help.

When you get lung disease it's too late and your family will miss you. :D

Have a fag Yorkie, you might be run over by a bus tomorrow.

Nicotine, as a drug, improves concentration, raises the heartbeat, and provides a degree of prophylaxis against Parkinson's disease. Also, it's cool, all the best people do it, you always have a source of ignition, you can blow smoke rings, and tobacco is a perfect combination with c.sativa flowers.

Many, many smokers life long and healthy lives. Plenty don't but that is also true of non-smokers.

Also smokers make a uniltateral and generous net contribution to the national tax coffers.

Any workplace that is worried about passive smoking need only install proper air cleaning apparatus, and this will also help reduce the amount of allergenic and carcinogenic substances in the air as a result of people walking in through the extrior door,admitting vehicle smog into the building as they enter.

Why are the no-smoking areas in pubs always where the dull quiet people hang out in bad jumpers?

Perhaps we should start a "Friends of Smokers" thread. It would help people from feeling like a social pariah for pursuing their own pleasures.
Thanks phanerothyme for the bit of common sense

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Why are the no-smoking areas in pubs always where the dull quiet people hang out in bad jumpers?

Because most of us none smokers are so thoughtful that we allow our smoking friends to breathe their foul stench upon us so as not to upset the social dynamic. Thus, only people with no friends sit in no smoking areas.

I always make sure that they are aware of my dislike of cigarettes by placing a large powerful fan blowing their smoke in the opposite direction right next to them. This generallly stops them doing it.

I laughed heartily the other day as I watched my friend place a cigarette in her mouth white end first! I then watched her take out a lighter, light the yellow end and inhale toxic burnt plastic fumes! Mwhahahaha :D

Originally posted by tim_rutter
I then watched her take out a lighter, light the yellow end and inhale toxic burnt plastic fumes! Mwhahahaha :D

Wow, I wish you were my friend you sound like a blast.

Originally posted by nick2
Wow, I wish you were my friend you sound like a blast.

She saw the funny side :D
anyway, I was hoping that she would then associate the nasty taste with smoking, thus causing a negative reaction each time she smoked and making her stop. See I only had her health in mind.

Originally posted by sheffco
Perhaps we should start a "Friends of Smokers" thread. It would help people from feeling like a social pariah for pursuing their own pleasures.
Thanks phanerothyme for the bit of common sense

Persuing their own pleasures at the expense of everyone elses health. I think that's the full sentence you were looking for.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Persuing their own pleasures at the expense of everyone elses health. I think that's the full sentence you were looking for.

I think if it was he would have put that.

Pursuing is the correct spelling. Some of us are educated.
I don't invite anyone to join me, company or habit wise.

Originally posted by sheffco
Pursuing is the correct spelling. Some of us are educated.
I don't invite anyone to join me, company or habit wise.

But aren't there people who sit near you? Or how about if you go into a pub and sit near some people, then smoke. Those people have to breathe in your fumes. Are you saying they should leave?

I don't go into "trendy" pubs, only ones filled with smoking customers. The average age would be around mid fifties, so I don't think I am in any danger of encountering Cyclone, and I don't think any non smokers would sit in my little corner. The ashtray is always in use, and cigarettes and baccy tins on the table would make it obvious to all but a cretin, or agent provocateur intent on causing offense.

Originally posted by sheffco
I don't go into "trendy" pubs, only ones filled with smoking customers. The average age would be around mid fifties, so I don't think I am in any danger of encountering Cyclone, and I don't think any non smokers would sit in my little corner. The ashtray is always in use, and cigarettes and baccy tins on the table would make it obvious to all but a cretin, or agent provocateur intent on causing offense.


Well i don't think its that simple. There's no such thing as a pub full purely of smokers. And this doesn't really have anything to do with "trendy" pubs. I'm not trying to cause offence just ask you and anyone the else the question: is it fair that your passtime damages the health of others?

Originally posted by sheffco
Perhaps we should start a "Friends of Smokers" thread. It would help people from feeling like a social pariah for pursuing their own pleasures.
Thanks phanerothyme for the bit of common sense

I think smoking (like masturbation) is one of these pleasures that is best enjoyed in private and with a little discretion. Each to their own by all means but lets not force our 'pleasures' (whatever they may be) onto others.

To me that is common sense.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think smoking (like masturbation) is one of these pleasures that is best enjoyed in private and with a little discretion. Each to their own by all means but lets not force our 'pleasures' (whatever they may be) onto others.

To me that is common sense.

:clap: well put.

sheffco - glad to see that you response was to pick me up on my spelling, does that suggest that your argument isn't very strong?

How about if someone else was in the pub first who wasn't smoking. Would you refrain then?

Does anyone know how much of a drop in sales a pub can withstand before it has to shut ?

Just supposing all the smokers decide "sod it, I'll stay at home instead, and I'll invite some non-smoking mates round too", how long before some pubs got into trouble ?

Originally posted by nick2
Does anyone know how much of a drop in sales a pub can withstand before it has to shut ?

Just supposing all the smokers decide "sod it, I'll stay at home instead, and I'll invite some non-smoking mates round too", how long before some pubs got into trouble ?

Maybe initially that may happen and then they'll realise that they don't go to the pub just to smoke and will return to enjoy hand pullled beers and pork scratchings whilst chatting up the barmaid. As are the activities of the english pub. Smoking is just an unfortunate blemish on an otherwise unmissable experience.

Originally posted by nick2
Does anyone know how much of a drop in sales a pub can withstand before it has to shut ?

Just supposing all the smokers decide "sod it, I'll stay at home instead, and I'll invite some non-smoking mates round too", how long before some pubs got into trouble ?

But won't there be a trade off. what about all the non-smokers who start going to pubs more because they are no longer smokey.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
But won't there be a trade off. what about all the non-smokers who start going to pubs more because they are no longer smokey.

But does other people smoking stop you going out with friends because others smoke? Your mates all say Friday night at the Rising Sun etc.. and you say oh no can't go someone might smoke near us. or can't see that band at the Leadmill cos' someone might smoke etc...

I hate the smell of smoke on my clothes and hair and I often get a shower when I come in from a pub or club. But that's a personal thing and it doesn't stop me from going out.

If pubs become non smoking I think there will be an initial drop in takings but it will rise again as smokers will think - well I'm not staying at home missing out on my social life and mates just to have a fag at home.

But I reckon doorways and pub entrances might have a few people around with a ciggie lit.

Originally posted by nick2
Does anyone know how much of a drop in sales a pub can withstand before it has to shut ?

Just supposing all the smokers decide "sod it, I'll stay at home instead, and I'll invite some non-smoking mates round too", how long before some pubs got into trouble ?

no reason to believe that we are greatly different to the Irish in our behaviour. So there'll be a slight drop and then actually an increase in profits (probably down to people having spent less money on cigarettes).
Not having to put in expensive ventillation systems will save money in the long run as well.

As to how much of a drop they can stand, that would depend on the pub. Some are probably borderline break even, whilst others bring in profit by the bucket.

Originally posted by samc
But I reckon doorways and pub entrances might have a few people around with a ciggie lit.

So you will still have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in, but thats something to moan about at a future date.

Originally posted by nick2
Does anyone know how much of a drop in sales a pub can withstand before it has to shut ?

Just supposing all the smokers decide "sod it, I'll stay at home instead, and I'll invite some non-smoking mates round too", how long before some pubs got into trouble ?


If smokers still frequent the pubs after the initial shock- they'll spend more as they'll be saving money buying less fags ( the more you drink the more you smoke) and will drink quicker without their fag breaks.

Originally posted by nick2
So you will still have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get in, but thats something to moan about at a future date.

ahhh but we all need something to moan and groan about. Be a dull forum without it...
:)

Originally posted by samc
If smokers still frequent the pubs after the initial shock- they'll spend more as they'll be saving money buying less fags ( the more you drink the more you smoke) and will drink quicker without their fag breaks.

so the pubs will be filled with brawling p**s-heads instead, I think I would like that less than the smoke.

AND as was shown in ireland its causes people to smoke less (drop in cigarette sales) so there'll be less people in hospital with lung cancer meaning that there'll be more people able to go to the pub in the first place. It all makes sense.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Why are the no-smoking areas in pubs always where the dull quiet people hang out in bad jumpers?

Nah, smokers are much more dull and boring :P

Though they do have a better sense of humour, as shown by this very thread :rolleyes:

Not read this whole thread but I'm sure someone must have made this (glaringly) obvious point already. Can't we all just be adult about this? No-smoking pubs for non-smokers and pubs where smokers can have a fag in peace?

Trouble is though that smokers are infinately more interesting people so all the non-smokers want to go where they go (whilst trying to stop them smoking in the process). Can't have it both ways folks...

(hee hee!)

Well Tim
Theres a huge drop in cigarette sales in England - - everyone buys it over the internet, or under the counter in smoking pubs.
I have just got back from my local (Estate) pub. In the space of an hour, at least two people were asking if there were cheap cigarettes for sale, and the landlady herself was smoking, although at a table close to the bar. There are ashtrays on every table, and at the bar, and you choose your company. I don't have any non smoking friends, just ones who have run out of baccy!
I prefer things that way, I would hate to make anyone uncomfortable, but I would ask why they were sitting there and complaining, after all, as you may have guessed, I am impervious to anti-smoking comments.
Try the Norfolk Arms, at the bottom of Dixon Lane. Not a trendy pub, no juke box, no fruit machines, Ive never seen the TV turned on. I've been going in there for fifty years or so on and off. Just full of old Sheffielders, and I can't see anyone on this topic converting them.
I'm glad to see that there are a few more supporters around.
Cheers

Originally posted by sheffco
Well Tim


You don't have to direct this at me... I'm not the only anti smoker. This has been proved by the various poles regarding this subject. It seems a large majority of people would like to be able to go to the pub with the knowledge that no one will be smoking there. A democratic decission would benefit the majority and in this case that would seem to be non smokers.

Also, Im sure if a total ban was brought in, you could still get away with having a sly smoke in your local pub. :)

Hmmm Not sure about this whole 'non smoker majority thing'. In some pubs, like Sheffco says, EVERYONE in them is smoking. In others this is not the case. Again, have some pubs no smoking, some pubs smoking - everyone happy.

My dad lives in a village with 2 pubs - one smoking, one non-smoking. Both do a really good trade. The smoking pub is a 'proper local', the non-smoking caters for families. Everyone happy.

Really tho, some pubs are as they are because the people who go in them make them so. If you made everyone stop smoking in locals it would take away from the character of the pub cos the people wouldn't be there!

Sorry Tim
I just meant to comment on the tobacco sales. You do come across as a very reasonable bloke (Specially the crosswords).
As some guy stated - smoking/non-smoking pubs would be the answer.
Unfortunately, withdrawal symptoms from nicotine which are a very real thing, would lead me to decline from spending too much time in a non smoking environment. I used to fly a lot, long flights, for a while, I could get by using "Emirates" or "Pakistani Airlines", KLM were one of the last to succumb to pressure. It's mainly economic - - less cleaning time, same as the shopping Malls, railways and buses etc. You see, I am incorrigible on the subject.
Just like to keep my end up, as the old saying goes

Hi see my poll on smoking in pubs on the general sheffield chat pages

Originally posted by sheffco
I used to fly a lot, long flights, for a while, I could get by using "Emirates" or "Pakistani Airlines", KLM were one of the last to succumb to pressure. It's mainly economic - - less cleaning time.

That's true, there was an economic side as well as the health, safety and comfort issues. Now that smoking isn't allowed, they don't have to give the air conditioning so much hammer, which saves a lot of fuel [CO2 bonus points] and therefore money. Because the air isn't refreshed so often this has also made it easier for passengers to catch diseases off each other - can't win 'em all.

Not sure that cleaning was a big money issue - I've seen some pretty filthy tar-stained planes dating from the time when smoking was allowed.

Originally posted by chickmonk


Trouble is though that smokers are infinately more interesting people so all the non-smokers want to go where they go (whilst trying to stop them smoking in the process). Can't have it both ways folks...



I don't know if this was a serious comment or if I have just missed a 'joke' but can you really substantiate this? Why do you think that smokers tend to be more interesting? I can't see the conection myself.

Originally posted by tim_rutter


Also, Im sure if a total ban was brought in, you could still get away with having a sly smoke in your local pub. :)

Not if I saw them they wouldn't.:hihi: It would be a phone call to the relevent autorities and a nice big fine for both smoker and landlord.

Some of us have waited too long for this to come in to see it ignored once it does.:clap:

Just posted about this on the (almost identical) thread on Sheffield Chat...
Smokers evidently more interesting because all the non-smoking sections in pubs are empty. This is because all the non-smokers (who hate smoking) sit with their smoking mates because they are more interesting. If the non-smokers were more interesting, then the smokers would sit in the non-smoking section (unable to smoke but with interesting company).

So, the fact that the smokers don't move means that they are the most interesting.

As I said on the other thread, why should it always be the non-smoker who has to compromise?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
As I said on the other thread, why should it always be the non-smoker who has to compromise?


I think chickmonk is trying to point out that they don't have to, they do it through choice, though once smoking is banned it won't be a problem as all the smokers will be outside smoking while all the non-smokers will be sat inside.

Originally posted by dinp
To the smokers here, do you not realise how rude and inconsiderate it is to go and stand/sit next to someone and puff away. Do you do this in front of your non-smoking friends?

I know you cant help the direction of the wind, but a bit of common courtesy would be appreciated. I don't want YOUR fumes in MY face, if I did, i'd stand next to you!

I agree, and I can't believe that nine people have now voted for 'I'm a smoker and I feel I should be able to smoke anywhere'. That means we've got nine very selfish people on this forum, who don't care about giving others lung cancer or asthma. Wonder if they'll reveal themselves?

It's no wonder smokers get labelled selfish and disgusting.

I'm an occasional smoker myself. But there's no way I would ever light up if it was going to cause other people offense, if it was going to blow in the direction of anyone else, or in a public place.

I'm not a big fan of second hand smoke myself (just the first-hand, direct hit variety!!!), and there's nothing worse than walking down the street, minding your own business, and then a smoker cutting in front of you and blasting you with a cloud of filth.

Smoking is my choice and I own up to the fact that it's a dirty habit. Fellow smokers should realise that they have no right to inflict it on other people, because it's a killer.

What if sunbed users suddenly brought a giant UV ray machine into a public place and baked everyone with it?

All this 'freedom of choice/expression' b*****ks is just an excuse for selfishness.

The non-smoker *doesn't* have to compromise. They can sit in the non-smoking section. But they don't cos they want to sit with their friends. Who smoke.

I reckon there are 4 types of people

1. Smokers who smoke
2. Smokers who don't smoke (these are smokers at heart but have given up the weed)
3. Non-smokers who smoke (the 'social smoking, nicking-your-fags type)
4. Non-smokers who don't smoke (the never have smoked and the ex-smokers who are really anti-smoking)

I fall into category (1) but may become category (2).

I just feel that it is considered more socially acceptable for non-smokers to sit with smoking friends in a smoking area and endure the smoke than to ask the smokers to sit in a non-smoking area and not smoke.

Am I wrong in this?

given the option I sit in non smoking, fortunately I don't have many smoking friends, and to be honest if they insist on sitting in the smoking section they can carry on the night on their own.

Slim Sid answers his own questions, in that his replies are really boring. I can't imagine him taking part in any of the lively discussions I have with my interesting smoking friends.
They have lives, experiences, jokes and anecdotes. Usually gleaned from their interesting lives and careers.
I agree with chickmonk, and my friends fall into catergoty 1 & 2.
Myself being definitely cat' 1. (80+ per day)
I can't really visualise the scenario of some of these "Ban the Anything" fanatics trying it on in any of the scenes I frequent.
Mockery, castigation, if not castration come to mind, but then, with the invincibility of youth and ignorance, they would still believe they have a right to try and change peoples habits of a lifetime.
Every time I see some person who having reached the age of 100 years plus, bleating on about their secret of long life. (Never smoked - Never Drank - Nevr went with naughty ladies).
I think "Why bother living" must be hell of a boring 100 years??

Originally posted by sheffco
Slim Sid answers his own questions, in that his replies are really boring. I can't imagine him taking part in any of the lively discussions I have with my interesting smoking friends.
They have lives, experiences, jokes and anecdotes. Usually gleaned from their interesting lives and careers.


It may well be that some smokers are interesting a witty people but so are some non-smokers. I don't know what evidence you have for saying smoking is relevent to it one way or the other.

As fior me being dull - well you should have seen me ram that large ashtray up that selfish smoker (sideways):hihi:

MASS HYSTERIA - that's what the government has caused.

Be warned, you drinking, car driving, over-eating non-smokers - yours is yet to come!

Did anyone ever read Aldous Huxley??
That's where we are heading.

For those who have not - enlighten us!

Slim Sid ----Not in my case you wouldnt, I use a zulu Knobkerry as a walking stick!

Originally posted by sheffco
Did anyone ever read Aldous Huxley??
That's where we are heading.

Doors of Perception? We're all heading for a mescaline trip??

excuse me, but as a smoker, i am not so well educated - please enlighten me!

:help: :roll:

I think he means brave new world.

Yes, I also think he was referring to "Brave New World" - a dystopian novel in which all aspects of life are closely controlled by the state.

Don't worry sheffco - we have Marked Your Words!