BF2S Forums Last weekend of freedom in the UK

What about the freedom of those who don't want to inhale the nasty smoke and those who may not want to eat next to a nasty ashtray.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Also, did you know the link between passive smoking and lung cancer is mixed at best.  There have been 5 or 6 studies done and they all had different results; one even claiming that passive smoking was of no danger to children!  Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between smoking and cancer and the World's foremost expert on the subject said that when he is the company of smokers he doesn't worry him because the risk is so small.  Even anti-smoking group ASH can only estimate passive smoking deaths at "hundreds a year".  Half a million people die in the UK annually so that tells you how far down the scale passive smoking is as a cause of death.

I lol at this comment until I see a link to evidence. I even have Philip Morris on my side!

Philip Morris wrote:

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation....

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/healt … _smoke.asp

im an american smoker. living essentially behind enemy lines here in soCal. People give you the evil eye if you smoke. Which is fine. Fuck them anyways But seriously, I dont disagree with no smoke in enclose spaces. Non smokers shouldnt have to deal with it and there is plenty of space outside. It seems like a reasonable rule. Hell, even if my friends say I can smoke inside their pad, I dont. It seems like a wise health decision. Now the uber nazis in Samo (Santa Monica) reaaly want to ban outside smoking. And that my friends, is where we will have a problem.

I don't smoke, but then again, I play computer games. Peeps are already trying to ban Computer Games as violent etc etc, they keep trying, but they keep getting rebutted. Officials are claiming computer games as unhealthy, and while that's debatable, politicians want to swoop on this one and ban computer games. People can easily say it's unhealthy and ban it.
I don't like this incessant health fanaticism. I disapprove of smoking, but I think you should have your right to smoke or enjoy something you buy.
Ciggarettes, and all that stuff etc.
I think Britain is the ultimate example of why big socialist governments fail, they try to satisfy everybody, and instead satisfy big businesses, lobbyists, and public health officials.
The British need to reexamine their path and see that big governments are not the solution to maintaining a stable and free country.

The_Mac wrote:

I think Britain is the ultimate example of why big socialist governments fail, they try to satisfy everybody, and instead satisfy big businesses, lobbyists, and public health officials.
The British need to reexamine their path and see that big governments are not the solution to maintaining a stable and free country.

Are you living in a little shack on top of a mountain or are you just stupid?

If people want to smoke thats fine, just not in areas with people who dont, and i mean establishments, smoking anywhere outdoors is open for business. Recently a family friend has been diagnosed with tongue cancer, the cause has been attributed to second hand smoke from his mother. They had lots of talks with each other and they were face to face while she smoked, not a good idea and i dont want to suffer the same sitting next to someone at a restaurant blowing smoke in my face. Ironically im off to vegas this weekend and will undoubtedly have to sit next to some cigar puffing sixty year old but its only once or twice a year so im ok with it, i do feel for the pregnant women who deal standing in those casinos at tables breathing it in hours a day the whole week and +1 to sere ha

Last edited by A12345 (2007-06-28 13:29:25)

smoking in america is similar in my town of omaha ne 68138 you cant smoke in restaurants unless they have Keno then they get 5 more years before they have to drop in building smoking

i am a smoker but do not like to eat it i perfer to smoke it so it is nice

Thank god.

No longer will I have to inhale/smell the toxic smoke that comes out smoker's mouths when I'm eating.
No longer will I have to have some selfish git ruin the taste of my meal.
No longer will I have my eyes hurt/itch after spending an evening in a restaurant.

Serves you right for picking up this disgusting habit in the first place.

Ha.

The fact is that there is NO REASON TO SMOKE.

But there are LOADS OF REASONS to stop smoking!


On your tax argument, its only National Insurance contribution that goes to the NHS.

"In a big political gamble, he will use a 1p in the pound hike in National Insurance contributions to pay for the UK's biggest ever increase in health service funding."

"The increase on both employer and employee NI contributions will go towards a £40bn rise in NHS spending over five years."

Thats what Brown did a few years ago.

There's no argument for what you're going on about!

buLLet_t00th wrote:

The fact is that there is NO REASON TO SMOKE.

ever tried quitting?
ive been smoking since i was 16 and ive been trying to quit for ages.  when you've done it this long there is a reason to smoke...its called not killing someone
*not really but sometimes it feels like it*

I am not a smoker. I detest government granting itself authority over where people can smoke not because I like smokers who blow their shit into my face (I hate the smell of cigarettes), but because I don't like the government butting into our personal lives in such a manner.

It is my opinion that businesses should be encouraged via tax breaks to ban voluntarily smoking within their indoor confines, allowing them freedom of choice. A bar will obviously want to retain smokers' rights, and if you're going to go drinking alcohol and shit, what will it hurt to add further poison to your body?

To be honest, as a non-smoker who despises the smell of cigarettes, part of me is relieved when smokers are driven further into an isolated corner where I don't have to inhale their shit, but the rest is concerned that governments are allotting themselves the power to pull this kind of bullshit.

================================================================================

CC-Marley wrote:

What about the freedom of those who don't want to inhale the nasty smoke and those who may not want to eat next to a nasty ashtray.

I'm with them all the way, but as smoking becomes more and more unpopular, it is an easy matter to find smoke-free restaurants.

CC-Marley wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

What about the freedom of those who don't want to inhale the nasty smoke and those who may not want to eat next to a nasty ashtray.

Freedom of Choice, go somewhere else.  Just think of what will happen when they apply the smoking ban to all forms of combustion.  It is right around the corner, no more gas cars, coal power or camp fires.

Freedom of choice? Choose to go smoke outside. I work in a restaurant and bar. Since the smoking ban went into effect 6 years ago our business has increased. People would stay away because they would leave after eating smelling like an ashtray.

Yes, the government obstreperously shuts down business rights and people say that individuals still have the freedom to go elsewhere...apologists. If I were running that sort of business, I wouldn't permit indoor smoking, but I would prefer to have the freedom to do so by choice, not by government mandate.

Schwarzelungen wrote:

buLLet_t00th wrote:

The fact is that there is NO REASON TO SMOKE.

ever tried quitting?
ive been smoking since i was 16 and ive been trying to quit for ages.  when you've done it this long there is a reason to smoke...its called not killing someone
*not really but sometimes it feels like it*

Ever tried not starting? Guess not. Bullet Tooth is partially correct. There's no reason to smoke, unless you are a smoker...the reason being physical and mental addiction to toxic substances.

The_Mac wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

What about the freedom of those who don't want to inhale the nasty smoke and those who may not want to eat next to a nasty ashtray.

What freedom is being deined? Convenience is not a right, if you feel your convenience is being infringed upon, you're free to move to another area. Combating something is not to ban it, but to educate about it. Free to choose.

If more customers tell a business (a restaurant, for example) that they're not going anymore because of cigarettes than the amount said business's smoking clientele, the business will usually ban smoking on its own. Besides, it's easier on building maintenance. That shit stains paint and works its way into material in a quite insidious and difficult-to-purge fashion.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-06-28 14:42:10)

CC-Marley wrote:

What about the freedom of those who don't want to inhale the nasty smoke and those who may not want to eat next to a nasty ashtray.

What freedom is being deined? Convenience is not a right, if you feel your convenience is being infringed upon, you're free to move to another area. Combating something is not to ban it, but to educate about it. Free to choose.

buLLet_t00th wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

I think Britain is the ultimate example of why big socialist governments fail, they try to satisfy everybody, and instead satisfy big businesses, lobbyists, and public health officials.
The British need to reexamine their path and see that big governments are not the solution to maintaining a stable and free country.

Are you living in a little shack on top of a mountain or are you just stupid?

Yeah, there's definitely something to argue with there. Step off your perch, parrot, and debate. If not, feel free to leave.

Lost Hope wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

I think Britain is the ultimate example of why big socialist governments fail, they try to satisfy everybody, and instead satisfy big businesses, lobbyists, and public health officials.
The British need to reexamine their path and see that big governments are not the solution to maintaining a stable and free country.

So the US is a socialist country too ?

To some extent, yes. Not really though.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-06-28 14:39:32)

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Do you actually know anything about the NHS?  Do you think that little bit of NI pays for the whole NHS/Pensions/Benefits etc?  Don't be stupid man, the NHS gets given the money from the Chancellor out of his pot of all taxes.

You really demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about here.
NI a tiny little bit? Are you nuts?

NI is 22.8% of wages for the vast majority of people. That's a LOT. A heck of a lot. 11% from the employees wages, 12.8% contributions by the employer. That's a huge amount of money.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

The point of the NHS is treatment available to all, free at the point of service and charging smokers more effectively overrides the whole constituion of having a national health service.  Because if we pay more, what's the difference between that and an insurance policy based on your lifestyle?

That's a stupid question.

There's a huge difference. It's free healthcare with conditions. How is that comparable to an insurance policy?