onewheeldave

I think that, for many of us, our lifestyles determine our social groups to some extent- when I used to be a smoker, I also wasn't particularly aware of people who didn't frequent pubs primarily because of the high smoke content of the air in them. However, now I am aware of such people, in fact, I'm one of them Whilst I don't avoid pubs entirely, I go far less often than I would if the smoke wasn't there. Where, as a smoker, I could happily sit all night in a room full of smoke and not even notice it; as a ex-smoker, that is not the case. So, I really do think that pub business is as likely to increase, as it is to decrease, when ex/non-smokers suddenly find that going to a pub doesn't make them ill anymore. As for why private businesses should have to comply to public pressure (via govt imposed laws)- the fact that pubs are seen as an intrinsic part to British social life and that, up to now, smokers have pretty much had a complete monopoly when it comes to the smoke content of the air within, to me, justifies legislation to have pubs with clean air. And yes, as many smokers will point out, self-governance by the industries concerned (and by smokers themselves) to take into account the wishes of non-smokers, could have been an option, but, over the past fifty years, the industry has not, in any way that accounts for the proportions of potential customers who object to smoke, addressed the issue. Fact is, that smokers, when in a group/pack, very rarely take into consideration the fact that many non-smokers find their smoke to be highly unpleasant. That's not because smokers are especially inconsiderate, it's just the nature of smoking that, once you've lit up in a group, because you're totally used to the toxic effects of smoking, it's natural to be unaware of the effect it has on many non/ex-smokers.

It's worth remembering that, for every smoker who feels so strongly about the ban that they do stop going out to the pub, there's going to be non-smokers who currently don't go to pubs purely cos they can't stand the smoky atmosphere, who, after the ban, will start visiting pubs. Overall, I see no reason why business should go down. And, even if it did, I'd still support bans on smoking in public areas anyway- when somethings wrong- it's wrong, the fact that it's economically not ideal to cease doing it, is not, IMO, a valid argument.

IMO- you. As long as they've not got alcohol dependency issues, then they're not going to be buying 2 pints every night, or consuming it to the extent that serious health damage is likely. Whereas, the majority of 20-a-day smokers are smoking that quantity every day, are addicted to nicotine and, are more likely than not, will reap substantial ill-health problems as a direct result of their nicotine use. The true waste is that each apparent 'benefit' of smoking is founded on myth and delusion- the relaxing effects of inhaling tobacco, which come about purely due to temporary relief of the stress caused by the nicotine addiction in the first place, are the same level of relaxation enjoyed all the time by non-smokers, who, to experience them, do not have to fork out a daily amount of cash or suffer the ill-health caused by smoking. However, for those who 'choose' to smoke 20-a-day (though 'choice' hardly seems appropriate where cultivating an addiction is concerned )- they're entitled to do so- just as those of us who know the reality of smoking are entitled to do what is necessary to minimise the risks of upcoming generations of youngsters who, traditionally, form the base of victims for this pointless addiction. Getting smoking out of indoor public spaces (buses, workplaces, pubs etc) helps to ensure that youngsters don't get confused and come to see smoking as being, in any way, normal, or a 'lifestyle choice'. Instead, when seeing smokers huddled together in little groups outside, where where non-addicts don't have to suffer their cancer-causing fumes; they see the reality, which is that 20-a-day smokers are people with a substance-abuse issue. So yes, IMO, those buying 20-a-day in cigarettes are, compared to those buying a couple of pints now and again, wasting more money. But, to be honest, wasting money is the least of their problems, in comparison to the substance abuse issues and likely occurance of substantial health problems.

For those here who think it's OK to party/play music/make noise and that those who object should just 'chill-out'- here's a little thought experiment (triggered by a sci-fi short story I read as a child): Suppose someone invented an 'anti-noise' making machine, which takes as input incoming sound, then sends out sound that is exactly out-of-phase; the result being a sphere of absolute silence. So, anyone annoyed by what they see as inconsiderate neighbours imposing their music/noise on them, can switch on the machine and have utter silence. However, the obvious drawback is that all noise is removed, so they can then not listen to their own TV, talk to their children/partner etc. So they then adjust the machine, moving the 'sphere-of-silence' away from their own home and settling it squarely on the home of the person playing the music. The idea being that, given the choice of playing their music at a quieter level or, having total silence imposed on them so they not only can't hear the music, but also cannot talk/listen, use their TV etc- the neighbours presumably will turn down the music. This would be a case of those who, currently, feel that sound is being imposed on them, can then give the noise-makers a glimpse of what it feels like, by imposing their silence on them. Similarly, those communities who currently object to outdoor raves, inner city club and pub noise, could club together to buy a bigger silence-machine and lower a sphere of silence onto the offending party/establishment, meaning that not only is the music/noise removed, but so is the possibility of conversation. ---------------------- How would those who currently feel that people objecting to loud music/parties should 'chill-out', if those people could similarly impose on them a complete silence that effectively stops them going about their everyday lives (playing music, using TV, talking/listening to housemates)? And, if you went round to complain about this imposed silence and, your neighbour simply said you should just chill out and enjoy the quiet, how would you feel? What would you say to him/her to try to get them to see your point of view?

So what happens if, say, someones doing something that's banned, such as smoking and it's brought to the drivers attention?

I'd like to ask what the situation is with regard to invasive/inconsiderate music? In the old days it was over-load headphones; increasingly it's from the likes of mobile phones with built-in loudspeakers. Today, sat near three teens who were basically taking the **** and, feeling that probably 90% of the passengers were finding it as unpleasant as I did, but probably felt fearful of asking for them to shut it off, I ended up doing so. I did so politely, but firmly, asking them to please switch it off (not just turn it down) and it was successful. My question is, if they had refused, would there have been any point asking the driver to sort it out? Do bus companies have policies on this and can drivers enforce them? Hope you can help out with an answer.

If the queue is of any length, I generally will not go to the end of it, but will hover around the front, then wait for people who got there before me to get on the bus first. The reason I don't go to the back of the queue is that it leaves the task of stopping the bus to others and, on several occasions, I've found that they're not up to the task i.e. the bus sails by and I have to wait for the next one. Whilst I understand why you're annoyed and that others do misuse the queues by hovering around the front and then simply getting on first; the fact remains that when I'm waiting for a bus, I do want to get on it, rather than risk it going by. Perhaps one solution is for the bus companies to instruct their buses to stop at all stops with queues, rather than only stopping when they see a request- until they actually do that, I'll continue to stand towards the front of queues and then wait for those there before me to get on the bus first.

This thursday (and next thursday) is 'Art in the Parks' circus event, where children can learn basic circus skills (diabalo, unicycling, poi, juggling etc) as well as make costumes- all activities are free. http://www.artinthepark.org.uk/futureevents.php

I've found unicycling to be a really good way to stay fit in the Crookes/Walkley/Netherthorpe area, due to the steepness of some of the roads there (eg Blake St, Conduit Road, Bates Street etc). And while I dabble with other fitness activities, unicyling is by far the one I find myself being consistent with, cos it's a lot of fun. Obviously it's not for everyone, but it fulfills your criteria of being interesting and unusual

I'd say the first thing to go is get digital photos of all the rubbish and street mess; possibly also get a petition from other residents who are being affected by this. Then, with this evidence, contact the university and the council, both of whom, if they're doing their jobs properly, should take this seriously and want to do something to curb it in the future. Just in case they're not doing their job properly and try to fob you off, mention that you're contacting the 'Sheffield Star' with the photos so they can run an article on it. And do contact the Star- they like to print stories on this kind of stuff and the fact that you can supply the facts and photos makes it an easy story for them to do. It's not easy being a student these days with the dire funding situation; but there's no excuse for the local area to be trashed like this at the end of every term. With good evidence of the litter and a willingness to take it to the universty, council and local media, there's a good chance that something will get done about this.

I went to see this on Sunday- it was excellent, the best circus I've been to.

Walking down London Road, away from town, on the left hand side you'll pass 'Jay Jays' the army store. Soon after that is the library (another landmark is the pedestrian crossing, but stay on the left hand side of the road) and Poi club is in the church hall next to it. Carry on walking to the end of the building, turn left and left again into the gate. Last week there was a sign up pointing the way. There should be spare sets of poi or balls. Dave.

Poi Club Review (Mon 7-9 Highfield Trinity Church, London Road) I along this week to see what was happening. I've spent a lot of time at Sheffields various juggling/circus skills groups, which, to varying extents, tend to have a poi presence. It was refreshing to see a different approach to spinning at this group with poi removed totally from the entertainment/circus skill, side of things and a focus on the benefits of spinning for fitness, co-ordination and mental/spiritual focus. Without wanting to put down students, it was also nice to see a group which catered instead to 'real' inhabitants of Sheffield, rather than just the transcient youth which make up the two universities. As is evident from the other threads in which 'Poi Club' has been mentioned, Kato is keen on showing the benefits of poi to groups who've previously probably not been exposed to it, such as martial artists. While I understand some of the cynisism that some seem to feel about this, I agree fully that poi are very relevant to many aspects of martial arts. Obviously, particularly where the traditional martial arts are concerned, fighting ability is only one aspect, with probably a greater focus on development on body, technique, balance, skill and, ultimately, spirit. Poi is, in many ways, a 'short cut' to all of the above. To any martial artists who are cynical, I'd suggest turning up for a session and basing any judgement on that; after all, with most martial arts classes in Sheffield currently costing around £5/session, and 'Poi Club' currently carrying no charge, there's really nothing to lose. But I'd also say, that it's just as suitable for anyone with no experience of martial arts or other skills- anyone who wants to improve their fitness, co-ordination and mental focus, with an activity requiring no significant financial outlay, which can be taken at your own pace and which, as well as being of substantial physical benefit, is also fun- would do well to check out this group.

By the wikipedia definition- "Choice consists of that mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one for action. Simple examples can involve deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route to make a journey across a country." clearly the addicted smoker compelled to smoke 40 cigarettes a day and who, on choosing to quit for good, finds themselves smoking again (counter to their 'choice') in a fortnights time is not in the same category as selecting a route. If I repeatedly 'chose' to drive to London, yet found myself on each occasion, in Glasgow, then something is clearly interfering in my choice. You either see that or you don't, I've explained it as well as I can on multiple occasions- if you don't, then shall we just agree that we have very different ways of viewing the issue and leave it? ------------------ As for the restriction of choice of smokers in pubs as a result of the ban- it's like all laws that are designed to protect rights, freedoms and choices; by necessity the choices of some are restricted. For example, laws that protect the right of individuals to not be murdered or raped, by necessity impinge on the choices of murderers and rapists- they would like to have the choice to murder/rape, and the laws restrict that choice. Similarly, individuals who like to drink and drive, have that choice restricted by the laws designed to protect the choices and rights of others who would otherwise fall victim to that choice. I think most of us are happy with those restrictions in choice and appreciate that, overall, they improve, for most of us, our 'choices' (for example, our choice to not be murdered, raped or mown down by drunk drivers) are protected and improved by them. This smoking ban in pubs is about the choice of non-smokers to have all pubs free of cigarette smoke.

IMO, this ban is one of the best things to happen in support of choice and freedom- and that's 'choice' and 'freedom' according to the standard dictionary definitions, I'm not using, as you say, 'private' defintions of words. Smoking is an addiction that, for many generations, has been responsible for more deaths in the civilised West than all other avoidable causes put together- W.H.O stats put it at around 4,000,000 worldwide annually. Smoking has always targeted the young, and most addicted smokers started smoking when they were young, many, under-age. Young people and children generally lack a realistic appreciation of what dabbling with cigarettes can lead to (ie lifetime addiction). Smoking and choice are poles apart- bans that help to chip away further from the old misconceptions of smoking being a matter of choice or as being normal or as being socially acceptable, all contribute to cutting down the number of young victims of this addiction. From the tone of some (happily, a minority) of posts on this thread, I'm under no illusions that anything I say is going to make much impact to those individuals. That's OK, at the end of the day, enough people have made their choice, which is that they don't want smoking in any public buildings. In the near future, we'll all see the results of that choice and how it affects pub takings, public health and the numbers of new smokers- I'm pretty confident that it will all be good

As Garryn says, it's a workers right for their workplace to be free of cigarette smoke- to say that they could choose to work in a non-smoking pub would be like allowing people to smoke in offices and telling any who don't like it to simply find work in a non-smoking office. Also, allowing smoking in pubs does not, as you say,please both non-smokers and smokers; many non-smokers want a ban in all pubs and won't be pleased with anything less.

A lot of people with very strong wills, find themselves addicted to smoking. I don't think it's particularly useful to berate addicted smokers with accusations of simply lacking willpower; especially when they could be more usefully directed towards resources like Allen Carrs book 'the Easy Way to Give up Smoking', which will show them how to quit without feeling bad about themselves. There they will be informed that willpower is fairly irrelevant in the process of quitting (and in fact, trying to rely on force of will is the reason many quitting attempts fail)- they will learn how (in Carrs view) understanding the way the smoking trap works, is the key. Once the smoking trap is fully understood, the addict will, like millions of other ex-smokers who used the method (including me), be able to put out their final cigarette and eliminate nicotine from their lives forever, without relience on willpower. Now this isn't to say that it's impossible to quit using willpower, but, in Carrs view, any successes would be more in spite of the method, rather than because of it (he also says the same of many of the other traditional approaches like nicotine patches/gum and substitutes- people do succeed with them, but it's in spite of them, not because of them). Personally, I don't like dissing patches etc- I prefer to encourage those who sincerely want to quit using them, but I do point out that, if smokers have tried the traditional methods several times and failed to quit, that they are then excellent candidates for Carrs approach. ------------- For those few here who seem intent on insisting that all, or most, smokers can quit using 'choice', or by 'willpower'- think what you will; I happen to disagree. More important, I don't think those views are that useful for those many smokers who sincerely wish to quit but can't seem to do so. For myself, I'm not interested in getting into heated discussions over the rights and wrongs of whether choice/willpower are useful or not. I suspect that, in the case of Nicholarse, we simply have a different definition of what 'choice' is. I'm happy enough with my understanding of 'choice'- I maintain that, with my first attempts at quitting, I was doomed to failure regardless of any choice i made, or any willpower I exerted. I succeeded in the end because I came to understand how and why I was addicted- it was that understanding that enabled me to quit. My priority on this thread isn't to debate the meanings of choice and willpower, if anyone disagrees with them then fine, i'm happy to accept that we have different views. My priority on this thread is to pass on my own good fortune in finally finding the way out of this addiction, to others who are victims of the smoking trap. I've known too many people berate themselves through what they, and others, see as being 'weak-willed' or not genuinely wanting to quit- I've seen them stay as smokers for year after year, with each of their attempts to quit leading to humiliating failure- till, eventually, they give up trying to quit altogether. To those people, I say that there's another way, one that sheds the old misconceptions of 'choice', 'willpower' etc- one that simply enables you to understand the true reasons you're addicted and shows you a practical way to escape the smoking trap.

The essence of Carrs book isn't that smokers choose to quit- rather it's that smokers need to understand fully the real reasons that they smoke. When a smoking addict fully understands the real reasons they smoke, they are then in a position where they can choose to quit and succeed in doing so. Without that understanding of the real reasons they smoke, they are constrained by the delusions (that they enjoy smoking, that they need smoking to relax, that if they quit they will be overcome by unbearable cravings etc, etc) that keep them addicted. Without that understanding, they generally cannot choose to quit, as their delusions will lead them to smoke a cigarette and thus end the attempt to quit. With that understanding, they can choose to quit and, being free of the delusions, can succeed. The key is the understanding, with that, choice is possible, without it, choice is likely to be ineffective.

Choice is simply one of the factors necessary to quit- by itself it will not be sufficient in most long-term smoking addicts to bring about the desired aim. This is why so many quitting attempts fail and why there are so many smokers who want to quit but are still smoking; it is why smoking is classed as addicitve. Were you one of the lucky few smokers who found it relatively easy to quit, who felt that they simply 'chose' to quit and succeeded? Are you perhaps making the mistake, common amongst those who are similarly blessed, that everyone can do the same? Over several years I made at least 100 attempts to quit- each time choosing to quit. Each choice was the same and, in all but the one successful attempt, led to nothing. That last attempt was successful not because I chose to quit, but because the necessary discipline and understanding was also in place. If, as you seem to be claiming, simple 'choice' is sufficient, then I would have quit on the first attempt, not the hundredth.

Long term nicotine addicts generally cannot simply choose to quit and succeed in doing so- the nature of addiction is that it seriously restricts the addicts ability to cease to use the substance. Did I choose to stop smoking- yes, I made that choice every time I attempted to quit; however, after each of those choices I failed to quit (until the final and successful attempt). To successfully quit required, in addition to the initial choice, an appropriate method, some discipline, luck and the lessons learned from the previous failed attempts. That intial choice was only one factor amongst many and far from the most important one (as shown by the fact that all the many previous attempts had that choice as a factor, yet led to failure). What I'm saying here is that, for nicotine addicts, simply 'choosing' to quit is unlikely to actually lead to quitting (as most long-term smokers are aware).

Congratulations You do realise though that not all non-smokers share your immunity to the effects of smoke though? Many simply don't currently go to pubs, because the amount of smoke makes then either uncomfortable, or ill. I'm a non-smoker and I no longer go to pubs, primarily because of the smoke. That's no big deal for me, I've got enough other stuff in my life that I don't feel I'm missing out that much by avoiding pubs. Nevertheless, IMO, it's unfair on those non-smokers who do feel excluded by pub smoke and, when it comes to 'choice', mine is for pubs and other public spaces to be free of cigarette smoke.

I'd see an example of 'exercising my choice' as, say, deciding whether to eat an apple or an orange, or whether to go out for a walk or stay in. When it comes to my quitting smoking, 'exercising my choice' is not the phrase I'd use- 'engaging in a ten year battle, full of failure, frustration and, on occasion, tears; against addiction' would be a far more accurate description. Many, many times I did 'choose' to cease smoking; however, every single attempt (excepting the final one) failed to result in the desired outcome- so I really don't think that 'choice' is the appropriate word when it comes to quitting smoking. Certainly, if I 'chose' to eat an orange, and, on doing so, consistently found myself eating an apple instead, I'd have to question whether this was anything to do with choice at all.

I wasn't making a moral statement, I was simply pointing out, in response to those many smokers who love 'choice' so much, that the current bans are themselves outstanding examples of people making a choice i.e. that where public smoking is concerned, they've chosen to ban it. As for erosion of civil liberties, I'm not going to say things aren't happening to that end- I just don't see cigarette bans as being part of it. Traditionally, social groups using drugs has actually led to them being easier to subjugate. An example is the old working class- the tendency towards alcohol abuse (and, of course, smoking) surely helped keep them 'in their place' and disempowered them? I've personally spent a fair bit of time around various committed protestors, and it's often struck me how much more effective they would be in bringing about change, if they weren't held back by their extensive use of cannabis/alcohol/tobacco. Surely a first step to a truly free population is for the individuals making up that population to be themselves free? Tobacco addiction (or relience/need for any drug) is not conducive to either freedom or choice. As for addicition, I know as much about it as any smoker, having once been a 30-a-day smoker for 10+ years; and I now know much more about it than any smoker, because I succeeded in freeing myself from it. (And for any smokers out there wishing to quit, let me say that it is well worth it, in ways you currently probably cannot even imagine- I only truly appreciated how enslaved I had been once I was fully free of this miserable habit. As someone else pointed out earlier, aquiring a copy of Allen Carrs 'Easy way to Give up Smoking' is well worth it, especially if you've failed to quit using other methods). As far as I'm concerned, smoking bans are the best things to have happened for liberty and choice, and the best thing that any smoker can do to improve their own liberty and choice, is to quit. (I'll also mention that the govt haven't got me 'up and dancing' on this- I've wanted smoking bans for way longer than the government have been doing anything about it).

??????? Do you think that most smokers taking their first ever drag are doing it with the intention of starting a 40-a-day lifelong habit? I think it's more likely that, if they spare any thought for addiciton, it's more likely to be a belief that they will evade addiction and stay in control. Most newbie smokers are relatively young and totally naive about the possibility of becoming addicted to soemthing like nicotine- I certainly was. There's no real choice in smoking- smoking, more than most things, removes choice; and that is why it's so important to ensure that future generations see smoking for what it really is- a pointless and deeply harmful addiction. I've no problem with people smoking in their own space- a lot of my friends still smoke; I just wish smokers would face the facts and stop trying to defend their addicition by trying to associate it with 'choice'.

As previously pointed out, smoking is not a choice, it's an addiction. Also mentioned was the fact that, for fans of personal choice like your yourself, public smoking bans are an expression of the choice of the majority to protect the rights of non-smokers. These bans are all about real choice. As for car exhaust fumes and ID cards, everyone is still at liberty to protest aganist them- allowing public smoking is hardly going to help prevent them, is it?