Total ban on smoking in public places by 200-odd votes?BASTARDS.That's it, this country is beyond redemption.
permalink | posted by Nosemonkey
Agreed. So where should we emigrate to?
thankyou bastards at last fresh air.Smokers exit left
just about the only thing this government has said or done that I've 100% agreed with since before the war.Free to breath in pubs :)
Congrats! This is the freedom of choice!An end to all these fanatic smoking bastards who want to dictate others their addiction!It was about time!Feel free to choose in 2007!
By the way: intolerant Smokers are bastards!Wake up and smell the coffee!!
The fact that you don't like it is just another small reason to celebrate. Get it right up ye.
The blog-authors argument is exactly the point why MPs have choosen to give everybody the choice.When smokers want to hurt others, they must be stopped from that. Simple.
Iraq, Foundation Hospital, City Academies, Top up fees, ID cards, smoking ban.That is it. I will be off spring 2007
Speaking as a non-smoker who has had the pleasure of going out drinking in smoke-free Ottawa, I say three cheers to the politicos for finally doing something I approve of.Being able to breathe in pubs is a glorious feeling. As is waking up the next morning and the pillow not stinking of stale smoke.And you know the best bit? Seeing smokers huddling together for warmth in the doorway. (Trust me - this last bit is far funnier in Ottawa at minus 15 degrees than it will ever be in London).
i wouldnt worry, there'll be loads of fun smokey cool little venues that spring up all over the place which noone will regulate and end up being the place to be. and non smokers can take a fucking hike. the regular pubs will be boring as fuck. and in summer everyone will sit outside. we arent yanks. Illegal rocks here.
True the pubs will be so boring full of people looking outside saying look as those sad smoking bastards sitting in the rain.
Ban the sale of cigarettes altogether - I have no problem. This, however, is hypocritical nonsense. A government funded by fag tax being self-righteous about "helping people give up"? Bollocks, more like.A far better alternative would have been tax breaks to pubs etc. that introduce well-ventilated non-smoking areas - as I have seen existing first-hand in Canada, for our Ottawa friend.I understand the anti-smoking lobby, I genuinely do. I don't like the whiff of cigarette smoke when I'm eating either. But there's no need whatsoever for an outright ban.Someone mentioned choice. How is banning something increasing choice, exactly? The government merely needs to provide greater incentives for the pub industry to provide alternatives for non-smokers who want some smokeless peace. It's easy to do and, long-term, would be better for the state's finances.All this will do is destroy a 400-year public house tradition for the benefit of a bunch of self-righteous health freaks who are doubtless so concerned about their physical wellbeing that they won't drink more than a couple before pissing off home to excercise and eat salads like the souless bastards they are.The sheer glee this decision seems to be eliciting from our non-smoking brethren is the ultimate proof, as if any more were needed, that militant anti-smokers are anything but the kind of person you'd want to have a pint with. You're like Jehovah's Witnesses in your sheer, unwarranted zeal for the cause. And, much like nutty religious types, you may mean well, but there's tit all proof of the central premise of your beliefs.There is proof of a link between smoking and cancer, for sure - but not passive smoking. Though it may well be harmful, it's surely less so than exhaust fumes. And as I don't drive and cycle to work, any non-smoker who drives yet has the temerity to berate me for the tiny amount of pollutants I put into the air can Fuck. Right. Off.
(I will, however, make an exception for Strangely Rouge on the "anti-smokers are boring dicks" front.)
nosemonkey,You stink, you don't know you stink becasue you smoke but you do, you make me stink and I know it. For years I've listened to you tell me you have rights but you care not for me.I go to the pub my eyes water my cloths smell and my head hurts but thats been my chioce becasue I wanted to be there. I guess I could have sat outside or sat alone at home.Now its your turn to sit outside.
And by the same logic, the real solution to the end to slavery is for the slave owners to become slaves.It's possible for smokers and non-smokers to co-exist in a pub environment. That's my sole point, and my sole wish.
Anon @ 10.08.Fuckwit. The whole point is to allow businesses to choose whether to allow smoking, and encourage them, voluntarily, to switch to non-smoking, so that, eventually, there will be a minority of pubs that cater to smokers and a majority in which smoking is not allowed.It's called a market economy, which govts can prod in the right direction if they wish. You could, if you wish, study economics and personal choice if you wish.Or you could simply prove yourself a fuckwit and throw insults around.This is one non-smoker who is horrified by the ban and the way it's to be implemented.
Agree with MatGB - I'm a non-smoker, I personally hate the smell of smoke, and I'll probably prefer the new scheme of things when it kicks in...However, just because I'm likely to be less inconvenienced than usual does not make this a decent piece of legislation. Everyone's freedom is more important than the prejudices of my nostrils. But a govt that runs on a platform of leaving me the fuck alone? Like that's EVER going to happen...I suggest Brazil for the emigration... sure the police might shoot you for the hell of it, but everything else is heaven.
Simon Jenkins is fantastic on this today. Clicky clicky.
@hosemonky who wrote:"It's possible for smokers and non-smokers to co-exist in a pub environment. That's my sole point, and my sole wish."Thats guaranteed with the smoking ban in 2007 – BOTH smokers and non-smokers can join pubs, at the moment only smokers can enjoy pubs. And in some pubs smokers or non-smokers are forced to sit in another room away from their friends...If this militant and fanatic smokers would have any tolerance we wouldn't need this law. But i never saw a smoker who asked staff or guests if its possible to smoke – they light up, staff have have to breathe this shit, and non-smokers has to leave – but thats history.
As yet another non-smoker I do not like this ban and agree with Nosemonkey's sentiments when he said:How is banning something increasing choice, exactly?And with MatGB that this issue can be simply resolved by the market. There is no need for a ban just better use of market incentives. I guess a good share tip for 2007 will be any company selling patio heaters.
It might have been interesting to see how financial incentives would have effected smoking in pubs, the strongest argument against letting the free market decide if pubs were smoking or nonsmoking is that unless you live in a big city that just couldn't work and its only the likes of weatherspoons with two massive pubs in every highstreet that could and would have taken the risk.In the same way I'd have rather people would have considered tearing foxes apart was bad and stopped fox hunting of their own volition, I'd rather the same happened to smokers, but I can't help but feel some glee at the prospect of not reeking of smoke squeezed from someone else's lungs.
actually, looking at thisi think I'd rather have a pint with the smokers
i agree: the ban is a very very good idea.unfortunately smokers have proved themselves incapable of taking other people into account in their habits. it's awful having to come back home from a restaurant or anywhere else stinking of someone else's smoke. smokers don't understand how much it stinks up other people presumably because their own sense of smell has been damaged.if smokers behaved responsibly about their habit then i wouldn't support a ban on it at all -- but they absolutely haven't. every time i have asked someone if they minded waiting to have their smoke until after i finished my meal i got a verbal barrage of abuse.consider this: imagine there was a significant portion of people who went around spitting in other people's faces while they were eating, talking, working whatever. it's not particularly pleasant for these people, there are some (perhaps minor) health risks and it affects the clothes and faces of those who are not engaging in the practice. spitting in your food, spitting in your face, spitting on your clothes, spitting on your children. if these spitting people insisted continually on doing this to people who were not spitters, claiming their freedom and addiction as rationale, don't you think it would need some government action to protect the vast majority of those who were not spitters? subtract smoking for spitting in this scenaria, smoking which not only travels a greater distance but also has much worse health risks and i really hope you would understand why non-smokers are so fed up of the arrogance of smokers..... your smoke travels much much further than you think -- even walking outdoors 10m behind someone smoking is unpleasant.and, hey, i've got lots of friends who are smokers. ;P
Anonymous @ 7:06 - so why ban the spitters from spitting entirely when there's the option of giving them a spitting room where they can happily spit all over each other without bothering the non-spitters?
Rouge:the strongest argument against letting the free market decide if pubs were smoking or nonsmoking is that unless you live in a big city that just couldn't workPaignton (pop: 60,000) isn't exactly a big city. With no market incentives, I can confirm 2 definite non-smoking pubs, more considering it. That's without me particularly looking for them.With incentives? Impossible to judge, but they're converting across anyway. One of those is a Wetherspoons, but they're leading the charge on this one, others will follow as it's seen to work.Anon@11.50, you're not forced to go anywhere; market pressure leads to changes, incentivise that through tax, more pubs convert.You are, of course, missingthe point entirely. Currently, there are no incentives, but there are a small and growing number of n-sm pubs anyway.With incentives? Remember how common low-sulphur petrol was before the "crisis" and Browns tax dodge? I'd never heard of it, 2 weeks later, every forecourt in the country sold it.
eric: why not give 'spitters' their own room? because their spit still travels well into the 'non-spitters' room in practice if not in theory (and rules such as "make a separate room" are always broken); because all the wait staff and other workers who are non-spitters have to risk themselves working in the spitters room; and because the spitters room is either next to the entrance or next to the kitchen -- if the latter then non-spitters food still has to travel through the spit territory and if the former then non-spitters still have to walk through spitland to get to their seats. i'll say it again: if smokers had proved themselves responsible (or concerned) about non-smokers i wouldn't support banning; but they haven't, and they've had decades to do so. of course i appreciate that many smokers are probably quite considerate but in practice the majority are not and regard it as their "right" to pollute the atmosphere of others.
Why is it that most of the arguments in disagreement of this post have been posted by Anonymous? I for one am not afraid to disagree in my name. I'm very happy about the ban, and hope to be able to enjoy the pub life I've been missing out on soon. One evening in London my husband and I were looking for a place for a quick meal and drink before a lecture. Every place we went in did not have a non-smoking section. How is this "choice"? We ended up eating at yucky Garfunkles, seated not far from the smoking section. Smokers on the other hand could have eaten in any of the fine pubs in London.And arguments of "tradition" do not sway me at all, not in a country that traditionally lopped off heads.
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!