Forums > Social Discussion > alcohol/tobacco vs. dope/mushrooms
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
This post is in connection with the often quoted view that legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) cause more problems than many illegal ones (marijuana, 'e', mushrooms).
It is true that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are responsible for far more suffering tham marijuana, 'e' and mushrooms.
Alcohol fuels the friday/saturday night casuality 'carnage'/street violence that is rife in the UK; tobacco is responsible for 4,000,000 smoking related deaths per year worldwide (that's more than all other drugs put together.
And this fact is often brought up by those who are against legislation for marijuana, 'e', mushrooms etc.
-----------------------
Just to put a different slant on this; is it not possible that a contributing factor to the devastation caused by the legal drugs, is precisely the fact that they are legal, and thus easily obtainable and usable in public?
If so, is that not good reason to not legalise the other drugs?
(I am aware that, for the past couple of years, potent mushrooms have been legally available in the UK/USA and sold openly, so they are technically legal; I would still differentiate between that and the legality of tobacco/alcohol because it hasn't been particularly well known by the general public, and it is currentlybeing seen as more of a 'loophole' in the law).
I anticipate that 'hypocrisy' will be brought into this ie why should alcohol/tobacco be legal and not marijuana- the main thing I'd ask people to reflect on with this is that alcohol/tobacco have been legal so long that-
1. they are (sadly IMO) accepted, seen as the norm, and prohibiting them fully would seem to be impractical
2. if they were freshly discovered today, they would be banned
3. in the case of tobacco, efforts are being made to gradually scale down use, by, for example, it being made illegal in increasing numbers of countries, to use it in public places
Obviously this is a wide ranging topic with lots of avenues for discussion; I would appreciate it if people do give their opinion on the point raised above (that the fact that alcohol/tobacco are legal, is one of the factors in their destructiveness).
This post is in connection with the often quoted view that legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) cause more problems than many illegal ones (marijuana, 'e', mushrooms).
It is true that the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are responsible for far more suffering tham marijuana, 'e' and mushrooms.
Alcohol fuels the friday/saturday night casuality 'carnage'/street violence that is rife in the UK; tobacco is responsible for 4,000,000 smoking related deaths per year worldwide (that's more than all other drugs put together.
And this fact is often brought up by those who are against legislation for marijuana, 'e', mushrooms etc.
-----------------------
Just to put a different slant on this; is it not possible that a contributing factor to the devastation caused by the legal drugs, is precisely the fact that they are legal, and thus easily obtainable and usable in public?
If so, is that not good reason to not legalise the other drugs?
(I am aware that, for the past couple of years, potent mushrooms have been legally available in the UK/USA and sold openly, so they are technically legal; I would still differentiate between that and the legality of tobacco/alcohol because it hasn't been particularly well known by the general public, and it is currentlybeing seen as more of a 'loophole' in the law).
I anticipate that 'hypocrisy' will be brought into this ie why should alcohol/tobacco be legal and not marijuana- the main thing I'd ask people to reflect on with this is that alcohol/tobacco have been legal so long that-
1. they are (sadly IMO) accepted, seen as the norm, and prohibiting them fully would seem to be impractical
2. if they were freshly discovered today, they would be banned
3. in the case of tobacco, efforts are being made to gradually scale down use, by, for example, it being made illegal in increasing numbers of countries, to use it in public places
Obviously this is a wide ranging topic with lots of avenues for discussion; I would appreciate it if people do give their opinion on the point raised above (that the fact that alcohol/tobacco are legal, is one of the factors in their destructiveness).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
*raises hand*
its what happened to me.
but imo tobacco is a more harmful, addictive drug with less postive effects (if there are any at all).
as such i do consider it to be a 'harder' drug than cannabis.
but then, i also consider alcohol to be a harder drug than cannabis.
but that's a whole other thread...
cole. x
Written by: onewheeldave
I do feel that marijuana use is helping to prolong the incidence of tobacco addiction; in that there's plenty of people who would have been unlikely to smoke cigarettes, who get addicted by smoking spliffs with tobacco in.
*raises hand*
its what happened to me.
but imo tobacco is a more harmful, addictive drug with less postive effects (if there are any at all).
as such i do consider it to be a 'harder' drug than cannabis.
but then, i also consider alcohol to be a harder drug than cannabis.
but that's a whole other thread...
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
SILVER Member
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
interseting that evryone made that point at the same time... i seem to have quite a slow connection though...
interseting that evryone made that point at the same time... i seem to have quite a slow connection though...
It is our fantasies that make us real. Without our fantasies we're just a blank monkey' - Terry Pratchett
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
wow... I'm a bit surprised
I mean... I thought it was possible but didn't think it happened as often as it seems to happen! For me, I tried cigarettes after spliffs, and they tasted worse and weren't nice at all so I never got into them. But maybe that's just me being one of those annoying people that don't seem to get hooked on nicotine... thanks for letting me know I was wrong there
Written by: duballstar
good point birgit but i know a lot of people that end up smoking fags as a result of starting to smoke spliffs so it is kind of a starting drug in terms of starting nicotine addiction....
wow... I'm a bit surprised
I mean... I thought it was possible but didn't think it happened as often as it seems to happen! For me, I tried cigarettes after spliffs, and they tasted worse and weren't nice at all so I never got into them. But maybe that's just me being one of those annoying people that don't seem to get hooked on nicotine... thanks for letting me know I was wrong there "vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,895 posts
Location: Cambridge UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,895 posts
Location: Cambridge UK
Posted:
As someone who can't drink alcohol (due to a medical condition) I've never really had the choice in drinking. But it has given me some interesting views on people drinking. When I was a teenager, I felt really left out, and turned to cigarettes as a way of 'participating' as I got older. The problem was I felt like I was missing out on something, particularly watching other people dancing, chatting up members of the opposite sex, etc. all with the supposed aid of alcohol. As I got older I then noticed more of the bad effects of alcohol; the vomiting/aggression/ loss of all control. To keep up with all this I started consuming another drug for going out: caffeine: which I found very enjoyable, as it gave me all the energy I needed for a big night out, while not losing the plot, the only problem being an occassional lack of sleep if i didn't wear myself out.
However, getting back to the smoking, I found that this became a habit. At first I enjoyed it because it gives you the chance to break in on certain social groups, but after smoking spliffs I realised just how grim cigarettes were. In fact I found smoking a cigarette actually made me less sociable, and now I have quit them for good.
I'll cut the ramble short there, but here are my thoughts:
1) Drugs always seem to be more enjoyable as a group activity, maybe because we feel they are then socially acceptable: at the end of the day, a lot of people feel the need to fit in on some level, whatever it is.
2) Drugs taken in moderation in a group situation have the potential to act as a 'social lubricant'
(no dodgy comments please!) in other words they form a common bond between people as long as they feel they are all on the same level.
3) Taking drugs on one's own tends (in my experience) to foster feelings of boredom or paranoia or stress if forced out of one's 'comfort zone' and into an unfamiliar setting, particularly if there are other people on a completely different 'high'
4) In fact, (as far as I can tell) most drugs have a negative effect on social skills of some sort, especially when they are taken in large quantitities (try having a conversation with someone on shrooms/very stoned/very drunk/etc. when you're stone cold sober to see what I mean)
5)In my experience, caffeine is the best 'social' drug BUT: nowhere sells it
and allegedly taurine drinks (red bull etc. most commonly found caffeine drink in bars)make your liver bleed (or so I heard- I always feel a bit rough after a few cans the next day-or it could just be tiredness).
6) non-alcoholic drinks tend to be
expensive in clubs or bars.
So what is going on? I think we are all really getting fleeced in the interests of commercialism. When you go out, people are not interested in your health, they want to make money out of you. The reason weed tends to get a better rap than most drugs is that a lot of people that sell it tend to do it for their mates and their mates' mates(at the local level at least) so there you feel like (and sometimes they do) actually care. When did a barman last sit down for a drink with you?
My personal preferences lie more to caffeine and weed than tobacco and alcohol, but there are bad sides to every drug (as has already been stated) I'd just rather deal with stoners than drunks, and can you imagine getting in a fight with someone on shrooms?
Konsti: As far as heroin goes, I don't feel much for the addicts, but it's the fallout for the people that care about them that upsets me the most. You wouldn't believe what it's like to have your brother go down that path and see your parents emotions get ripped to shreds.....
As someone who can't drink alcohol (due to a medical condition) I've never really had the choice in drinking. But it has given me some interesting views on people drinking. When I was a teenager, I felt really left out, and turned to cigarettes as a way of 'participating' as I got older. The problem was I felt like I was missing out on something, particularly watching other people dancing, chatting up members of the opposite sex, etc. all with the supposed aid of alcohol. As I got older I then noticed more of the bad effects of alcohol; the vomiting/aggression/ loss of all control. To keep up with all this I started consuming another drug for going out: caffeine: which I found very enjoyable, as it gave me all the energy I needed for a big night out, while not losing the plot, the only problem being an occassional lack of sleep if i didn't wear myself out.
However, getting back to the smoking, I found that this became a habit. At first I enjoyed it because it gives you the chance to break in on certain social groups, but after smoking spliffs I realised just how grim cigarettes were. In fact I found smoking a cigarette actually made me less sociable, and now I have quit them for good.
I'll cut the ramble short there, but here are my thoughts:
1) Drugs always seem to be more enjoyable as a group activity, maybe because we feel they are then socially acceptable: at the end of the day, a lot of people feel the need to fit in on some level, whatever it is.
2) Drugs taken in moderation in a group situation have the potential to act as a 'social lubricant'
(no dodgy comments please!) in other words they form a common bond between people as long as they feel they are all on the same level.3) Taking drugs on one's own tends (in my experience) to foster feelings of boredom or paranoia or stress if forced out of one's 'comfort zone' and into an unfamiliar setting, particularly if there are other people on a completely different 'high'
4) In fact, (as far as I can tell) most drugs have a negative effect on social skills of some sort, especially when they are taken in large quantitities (try having a conversation with someone on shrooms/very stoned/very drunk/etc. when you're stone cold sober to see what I mean)
5)In my experience, caffeine is the best 'social' drug BUT: nowhere sells it
and allegedly taurine drinks (red bull etc. most commonly found caffeine drink in bars)make your liver bleed (or so I heard- I always feel a bit rough after a few cans the next day-or it could just be tiredness).
6) non-alcoholic drinks tend to be
expensive in clubs or bars.So what is going on? I think we are all really getting fleeced in the interests of commercialism. When you go out, people are not interested in your health, they want to make money out of you. The reason weed tends to get a better rap than most drugs is that a lot of people that sell it tend to do it for their mates and their mates' mates(at the local level at least) so there you feel like (and sometimes they do) actually care. When did a barman last sit down for a drink with you?
My personal preferences lie more to caffeine and weed than tobacco and alcohol, but there are bad sides to every drug (as has already been stated) I'd just rather deal with stoners than drunks, and can you imagine getting in a fight with someone on shrooms?
Konsti: As far as heroin goes, I don't feel much for the addicts, but it's the fallout for the people that care about them that upsets me the most. You wouldn't believe what it's like to have your brother go down that path and see your parents emotions get ripped to shreds.....
Because ActiveAngel sounds like a feminine deodorant
Like sex, I'm much more interesting in real life than online.
'Be the change you want to see in the world around you' - Ghandi
stranger
80 posts
Location: Greece-Samos-Athens
80 posts
Location: Greece-Samos-Athens
Posted:
Want it or not they are illegal for some reasons that are unknown to us. The thing is that there is no control in illegal stuff that you buy from someone who knows some people and each of them knows someone that knows someone e.t.c. that knows someone that produces them.So anyone has to take his chances as long as he really does not have an idea of what these things have inside.I don't mean pot.This u can plan it on your own and mushrooms too, I mean other things chemical things. I am against alcohol and nicotine and kaffeine but I am against other drugs too as far as they are not used correctly.
The system now has made some drugs illegal but when it need a booster for the soldiers was giving them Ketamines and other drugs that made them on speed.
I don't trust the system, I believe in use and not abuse of drugs. I don't like watching people losing themselves and I hate it when it happens to me. As far as psychedelic drugs are concerned they are not innoscent.They might be not addictive but they can cause psychological irreversible damage.I chose not to take those king of drugs because I am not in a good psychological situation.I suffer from panic attacks.I am better now and I think I am getting over it because I know the reason that I am suffering. As you realize if I have a bad trip that will cost me the hole panic treatment.
Stay away from alcohol it makes you a shadow of who you are.(the next day especially....)
kisses:*
Want it or not they are illegal for some reasons that are unknown to us. The thing is that there is no control in illegal stuff that you buy from someone who knows some people and each of them knows someone that knows someone e.t.c. that knows someone that produces them.So anyone has to take his chances as long as he really does not have an idea of what these things have inside.I don't mean pot.This u can plan it on your own and mushrooms too, I mean other things chemical things. I am against alcohol and nicotine and kaffeine but I am against other drugs too as far as they are not used correctly.
The system now has made some drugs illegal but when it need a booster for the soldiers was giving them Ketamines and other drugs that made them on speed.
I don't trust the system, I believe in use and not abuse of drugs. I don't like watching people losing themselves and I hate it when it happens to me. As far as psychedelic drugs are concerned they are not innoscent.They might be not addictive but they can cause psychological irreversible damage.I chose not to take those king of drugs because I am not in a good psychological situation.I suffer from panic attacks.I am better now and I think I am getting over it because I know the reason that I am suffering. As you realize if I have a bad trip that will cost me the hole panic treatment.
Stay away from alcohol it makes you a shadow of who you are.(the next day especially....)
kisses:*
"For once there was an unknown land, full of strange flowers and subtle perfumes,
a land of which it is joy of all joys to dream, a land where all things are perfect and poisonous."
"Put out the torches! Hide the moon! Hide the stars!"
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
i think lazyangel's comments are pretty accurate, bar one, to which i offer this counterexample:
coffeeshops
and smoking spliffs does often lead to full-on tobacco addiction, which is a shame. but the problem there isn't smoking weed as such, it's smoking it with tobacco. not everyone does this.
i think lazyangel's comments are pretty accurate, bar one, to which i offer this counterexample:
coffeeshops
and smoking spliffs does often lead to full-on tobacco addiction, which is a shame. but the problem there isn't smoking weed as such, it's smoking it with tobacco. not everyone does this.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Dave, you suggest a combination of education and legislation. The anti-smoking groups have has a huge impact with their anti-smoking campaign ads, so why do you still see the need for legislation? And what do you mean by legislation? Would you use legislative power for good or for evil?
Would you decriminalise pot?
Legalise pot cookies to prevent smoking diseases?
Legalise naltrerxone implants, to get people off heroin?
Legalise drug testing at raves to reduce odâs?
Legalise drug-testing kits?
Support heroin trials? (Which were stopped when the US Gov threatened to place an embargo on Australian opium.)
Support other new approaches to an old problem?
OR
Would you just increasse the penalties?
OWD you said
This would suggest that prohibition is pointless, and would not work for cannabis that is now entrenched in many estates.
Birgit, I think the most serious gateway drug is alcohol. People see how it is excepted in society, and kids see how people abuse this drug, and copy the behaviour to certain extent. Try going to a party in oz and refusing a drink.
PsychoTronic, Ketamines is a dissociative and animal tranquilliser that was used in dubious psychoanalytic therapies in the 80s. Berserker fighters have been used in the past, and speed was given to German soldiers and Japanese munitions workers during WW2. Interestedly enough, speed is still supplied to US airforce pilots who need to fly long missions (fact).
Dave, you suggest a combination of education and legislation. The anti-smoking groups have has a huge impact with their anti-smoking campaign ads, so why do you still see the need for legislation? And what do you mean by legislation? Would you use legislative power for good or for evil?
Would you decriminalise pot?
Legalise pot cookies to prevent smoking diseases?
Legalise naltrerxone implants, to get people off heroin?
Legalise drug testing at raves to reduce odâs?
Legalise drug-testing kits?
Support heroin trials? (Which were stopped when the US Gov threatened to place an embargo on Australian opium.)
Support other new approaches to an old problem?
OR
Would you just increasse the penalties?
OWD you said
Written by:
Whilst acknowledging that money is undoubtedly a factor as well; the fact remains that once something has become firmly entrenched as socially normal 'banning' is not as straightforward or practical.
This would suggest that prohibition is pointless, and would not work for cannabis that is now entrenched in many estates.
Birgit, I think the most serious gateway drug is alcohol. People see how it is excepted in society, and kids see how people abuse this drug, and copy the behaviour to certain extent. Try going to a party in oz and refusing a drink.
PsychoTronic, Ketamines is a dissociative and animal tranquilliser that was used in dubious psychoanalytic therapies in the 80s. Berserker fighters have been used in the past, and speed was given to German soldiers and Japanese munitions workers during WW2. Interestedly enough, speed is still supplied to US airforce pilots who need to fly long missions (fact).
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
slack rating - 9.5
2,216 posts
Location: Suburbiton, Yoo-Kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
damn straight...
Written by: stone
I think the most serious gateway drug is alcohol
damn straight...
It is our fantasies that make us real. Without our fantasies we're just a blank monkey' - Terry Pratchett
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As I've said before, I've no real opinion on whether or not marijuana should be legal or not- because I have no idea on whether it being legalised would increase, or decrease it's use.
I have argued often against some views put forward on this board that bans are inneffective; in the majority of those cases I am pointing out what I see as invalid arguments based on misunderstanding (rather than argueing that bans should be in place)
I suspect that some here see what I write and make assumptions about my opinion on bans, when I actually have not said whether or not I'd support such bans.
Bans that I do support would include bans on smoking in public places, on the grounds that-
1. smoking in pubs/public buildings is an infringement on my right to breathe clean air, and the rights of other non-smokers
2. IMO, such bans help to cut down on the numbers of smokers in the next generation, by helping to remove the perception that smoking is 'normal' (and IMO this is a good thing as I consider those who smoke to be victims, rather than as having 'chosen' to smoke).
3. Such bans are balanced- smokers are permited to smoke in designated areas. My view is that the situation 20 years ago, when smokers could light up anywhere (including confined spaces on public transport) was grossly unbalanced- the current move towards dissallowing smoking in public places is simply correcting a misbalance.
-------------
Your other questions are interesting and well thought out Stone; I am sorry that I can't really give opinions on them.
The fine-tuning of drug laws is not something I have opinions on, or interest in- I acknowledge its validity, but prefer to leave it to those who have a preference for such things.
My own way of looking at the drug situation and its solution is more of a 'standing back and seeing the entire causal structure', simplyifying, and using my own experiences of drugs and those who use them.
And, to clarify; whilst I would not push for absolute bans on drugs; I do consider drug use of kinds (whether legal, illegal, 'recreational' or over-use) to be (to put it simplistically) 'bad'.
ie, there are (IMO) no good reasons to take drugs, there are no positive aspects to drug use.
Those who smoke, or use weed, or who habitually drink, and who see any benefits to these activities, are, IMO, subject to delusion.
Again I will stress that that does not mean I believe that banning such substances is the answer.
Written by: Stone
Dave, you suggest a combination of education and legislation. The anti-smoking groups have has a huge impact with their anti-smoking campaign ads, so why do you still see the need for legislation? And what do you mean by legislation? Would you use legislative power for good or for evil?
Would you decriminalise pot?
Legalise pot cookies to prevent smoking diseases?
Legalise naltrerxone implants, to get people off heroin?
Legalise drug testing at raves to reduce odâs?
Legalise drug-testing kits?
Support heroin trials? (Which were stopped when the US Gov threatened to place an embargo on Australian opium.)
Support other new approaches to an old problem?
OR
Would you just increasse the penalties?
As I've said before, I've no real opinion on whether or not marijuana should be legal or not- because I have no idea on whether it being legalised would increase, or decrease it's use.
I have argued often against some views put forward on this board that bans are inneffective; in the majority of those cases I am pointing out what I see as invalid arguments based on misunderstanding (rather than argueing that bans should be in place)
I suspect that some here see what I write and make assumptions about my opinion on bans, when I actually have not said whether or not I'd support such bans.
Bans that I do support would include bans on smoking in public places, on the grounds that-
1. smoking in pubs/public buildings is an infringement on my right to breathe clean air, and the rights of other non-smokers
2. IMO, such bans help to cut down on the numbers of smokers in the next generation, by helping to remove the perception that smoking is 'normal' (and IMO this is a good thing as I consider those who smoke to be victims, rather than as having 'chosen' to smoke).
3. Such bans are balanced- smokers are permited to smoke in designated areas. My view is that the situation 20 years ago, when smokers could light up anywhere (including confined spaces on public transport) was grossly unbalanced- the current move towards dissallowing smoking in public places is simply correcting a misbalance.
-------------
Your other questions are interesting and well thought out Stone; I am sorry that I can't really give opinions on them.
The fine-tuning of drug laws is not something I have opinions on, or interest in- I acknowledge its validity, but prefer to leave it to those who have a preference for such things.
My own way of looking at the drug situation and its solution is more of a 'standing back and seeing the entire causal structure', simplyifying, and using my own experiences of drugs and those who use them.
And, to clarify; whilst I would not push for absolute bans on drugs; I do consider drug use of kinds (whether legal, illegal, 'recreational' or over-use) to be (to put it simplistically) 'bad'.
ie, there are (IMO) no good reasons to take drugs, there are no positive aspects to drug use.
Those who smoke, or use weed, or who habitually drink, and who see any benefits to these activities, are, IMO, subject to delusion.
Again I will stress that that does not mean I believe that banning such substances is the answer.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
marajuana is bad. heroine is bad - kids, drugs are bad, mmm-kay? 
just a comment on your first point dave (not that i necessarily disagree):
"1. smoking in pubs/public buildings is an infringement on my right to breathe clean air, and the rights of other non-smokers"
pubs are public places specifically designated to use drugs (alcohol and to a lesser extent, nicotine) in a recreational manner - that is what they are there for.
if you should be allowed to smoke anywhere at all in public, it should be in pubs.
i think the pub landlords should be left free to decide what legal activities they permit on their premises.
i think we all should be able to dictate what we choose to do in our own homes - and to some extent, this should include public houses.
an analogy to show how a ban on smoking in pubs infringes uopn rather than protects our personal liberties is: if i never use a car for personal transport, why should i be made to breathe pollution all day in the city that i work in?
why is my health sacrificed just so someone else can get from a to b in their mercedes rather than using the tube?
is this not an infringement on my 'right to breathe clean air' and just as such, equally as worthy of banning as smoking in public?
cole. x
marajuana is bad. heroine is bad - kids, drugs are bad, mmm-kay? just a comment on your first point dave (not that i necessarily disagree):
"1. smoking in pubs/public buildings is an infringement on my right to breathe clean air, and the rights of other non-smokers"
pubs are public places specifically designated to use drugs (alcohol and to a lesser extent, nicotine) in a recreational manner - that is what they are there for.
if you should be allowed to smoke anywhere at all in public, it should be in pubs.
i think the pub landlords should be left free to decide what legal activities they permit on their premises.
i think we all should be able to dictate what we choose to do in our own homes - and to some extent, this should include public houses.
an analogy to show how a ban on smoking in pubs infringes uopn rather than protects our personal liberties is: if i never use a car for personal transport, why should i be made to breathe pollution all day in the city that i work in?
why is my health sacrificed just so someone else can get from a to b in their mercedes rather than using the tube?
is this not an infringement on my 'right to breathe clean air' and just as such, equally as worthy of banning as smoking in public?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
This is the way i feel about this.
Why isnt it an infringment on your right to breathe clean air? Why shouldnt people be forced to used public trasport instead of polluting, crashing and delaying?
I would argue that the smoke spewing mercedes should be banned too.
I fully support the smoking ban here in ireland, if for no other reason that when you wake up beside pretty girl, her hair stills smells nice.
The ban has been ver succesful here. The people that smoke go outside or in very well ventilated areas provided. There are more heated beer gardens everywhere and its also a great way to start a chat with someone. There are positives...
Its also worth pointing out that the smoking ban had alot more to do with Emplyoee health and saftey than it did protecting the public. Why should I damage my health while trying to earn a living at one of the few thing im good at? I developed a nicotine habit from working in that pub. Out of 15 bar staff, only one was a non smoker and All of the full time restaurant bar/staff smoked.
In the same bar now, the ratio is about fifty fifty.
Theres also people with health/breathing problems to consider.... a guy with lung cancer should be able to enjoy a social pint too.
Its a public smoking ban though. Not a just a bar ban. People at work should not have to risk their health. And it has to be one rule for all. IMHO (very first time i wrote that)
This is the way i feel about this.
Why isnt it an infringment on your right to breathe clean air? Why shouldnt people be forced to used public trasport instead of polluting, crashing and delaying?
I would argue that the smoke spewing mercedes should be banned too.
I fully support the smoking ban here in ireland, if for no other reason that when you wake up beside pretty girl, her hair stills smells nice.
The ban has been ver succesful here. The people that smoke go outside or in very well ventilated areas provided. There are more heated beer gardens everywhere and its also a great way to start a chat with someone. There are positives...
Its also worth pointing out that the smoking ban had alot more to do with Emplyoee health and saftey than it did protecting the public. Why should I damage my health while trying to earn a living at one of the few thing im good at? I developed a nicotine habit from working in that pub. Out of 15 bar staff, only one was a non smoker and All of the full time restaurant bar/staff smoked.
In the same bar now, the ratio is about fifty fifty.
Theres also people with health/breathing problems to consider.... a guy with lung cancer should be able to enjoy a social pint too.
Its a public smoking ban though. Not a just a bar ban. People at work should not have to risk their health. And it has to be one rule for all. IMHO (very first time i wrote that)
Love is the law.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Good points, I'm glad you brought them up.
Pubs are also the primary means of socialising within our culture, it is therefore, IMO, not right that those who are badly affected by, or who choose not to be in the presence of, smoky rooms; be excluded (from that primary means of socialising).
Also, of course, and this is at the root of why smoking bans are being brought in (fear of court cases in the future), employees have a right for their workplace to be safe. Thus those who work in pubs have a right to a clean atmosphere.
Additionally, when smoking is banned in pubs, it doesn't exclude smokers- they can gather outside to smoke.
From experience (I smoked for ten years) I never found myself resenting having to go outside college to smoke, nor did any other smoker I knew. It was actually a good break to the rest of the day and a chance for all the smokers to gather together, partake in their habit and socialise.
Conversly, as an ex-smoker, I find myself deeply resenting the current pub situation in Britain, and do feel myself to be excluded because of the presence of distressing amounts of smoke in pubs.
I don't mind being in the presence of the smokers I know in their homes etc, I don't mind the presence of a moderate quantity of smoke in a room. But the situation in pubs is absurd, those of us who don't smoke can often feel ill from being in such smoke filled atmospheres.
So, given that bans on smoking in pubs bring immense benefits to non/ex smokers, and, at the same time, do not adversly impinge on smokers enjoyment- I wholeheartedly support bans on smoking in pubs.
Good points, I'm glad you brought them up.
Written by: coleman
pubs are public places specifically designated to use drugs (alcohol and to a lesser extent, nicotine) in a recreational manner - that is what they are there for.
if you should be allowed to smoke anywhere at all in public, it should be in pubs.
i think the pub landlords should be left free to decide what legal activities they permit on their premises.
Pubs are also the primary means of socialising within our culture, it is therefore, IMO, not right that those who are badly affected by, or who choose not to be in the presence of, smoky rooms; be excluded (from that primary means of socialising).
Also, of course, and this is at the root of why smoking bans are being brought in (fear of court cases in the future), employees have a right for their workplace to be safe. Thus those who work in pubs have a right to a clean atmosphere.
Additionally, when smoking is banned in pubs, it doesn't exclude smokers- they can gather outside to smoke.
From experience (I smoked for ten years) I never found myself resenting having to go outside college to smoke, nor did any other smoker I knew. It was actually a good break to the rest of the day and a chance for all the smokers to gather together, partake in their habit and socialise.
Conversly, as an ex-smoker, I find myself deeply resenting the current pub situation in Britain, and do feel myself to be excluded because of the presence of distressing amounts of smoke in pubs.
I don't mind being in the presence of the smokers I know in their homes etc, I don't mind the presence of a moderate quantity of smoke in a room. But the situation in pubs is absurd, those of us who don't smoke can often feel ill from being in such smoke filled atmospheres.
So, given that bans on smoking in pubs bring immense benefits to non/ex smokers, and, at the same time, do not adversly impinge on smokers enjoyment- I wholeheartedly support bans on smoking in pubs.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
If you feel so strongly about it then get to work- post your opinions on discussion forums, or start up a campaign etc.
I'm not going to disagree with what you've said; personally it's not a cause I'm up for supporting because I feel more strongly about the smoking issue, and prefer to spend time working on that.
But your point is a good one.
Written by: coleman
an analogy to show how a ban on smoking in pubs infringes uopn rather than protects our personal liberties is: if i never use a car for personal transport, why should i be made to breathe pollution all day in the city that i work in?
why is my health sacrificed just so someone else can get from a to b in their mercedes rather than using the tube?
is this not an infringement on my 'right to breathe clean air' and just as such, equally as worthy of banning as smoking in public?
If you feel so strongly about it then get to work- post your opinions on discussion forums, or start up a campaign etc.
I'm not going to disagree with what you've said; personally it's not a cause I'm up for supporting because I feel more strongly about the smoking issue, and prefer to spend time working on that.
But your point is a good one.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
lovable smart-ass
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
Posted:
its one thing having to go outside at college to have a ciggie and a completely different one having to go outside a pub.
in a pub you are going to loose ur space (if its crowded), youll have to leave ur drink inside as most pubs wont allow that. so theres a risk of ur drink being unattended. what if its raining or snowing, or simply bloody cold outside. so do u want most of the pub lounging outside in the streets? especially in britain, where people drink uncontrollably, thats going to cause fights.
so please dont tell me that there is no inconvenience created for smokers.....
its one thing having to go outside at college to have a ciggie and a completely different one having to go outside a pub.
in a pub you are going to loose ur space (if its crowded), youll have to leave ur drink inside as most pubs wont allow that. so theres a risk of ur drink being unattended. what if its raining or snowing, or simply bloody cold outside. so do u want most of the pub lounging outside in the streets? especially in britain, where people drink uncontrollably, thats going to cause fights.
so please dont tell me that there is no inconvenience created for smokers.....
"is optimism in austria just a lack of information?"
-Alfred Dorfer
GOLD Member
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posted:
Would just like to clean up one small matter hereâŚ
The Irish government did not ban smoking in âpublic placesâ
They introduced a smoking ban in âworkplacesâ which have 3 or more walls and a roof, i.e. confined spaces.
If you work in an area thatâs only walled on 2 sides, and has no roof, you can smoke away to your hearts content. Similarly, the park warden & street sweeper are not confined to an enclosed workplace. Itâs therefore perfectly ok to smoke in public places like parks and on the street, even though people work thereâŚ.
Would just like to clean up one small matter hereâŚ
The Irish government did not ban smoking in âpublic placesâ
They introduced a smoking ban in âworkplacesâ which have 3 or more walls and a roof, i.e. confined spaces.
If you work in an area thatâs only walled on 2 sides, and has no roof, you can smoke away to your hearts content. Similarly, the park warden & street sweeper are not confined to an enclosed workplace. Itâs therefore perfectly ok to smoke in public places like parks and on the street, even though people work thereâŚ.
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
thankyou for clarifying that faberge
thankyou for clarifying that faberge
Love is the law.
GOLD Member
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
veteran
1,459 posts
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posted:
come to Dublin so, you'll be most
Written by: onewheeldave
Conversly, as an ex-smoker, I find myself deeply resenting the current pub situation in Britain, and do feel myself to be excluded because of the presence of distressing amounts of smoke in pubs.
come to Dublin so, you'll be most
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
While it's true that pubs were always a place for drinking and smoking, that originates from a time when much less was known about the health risks of active and passive smoking, and when smoking was a neglectable health issue compared to what people were exposed to every day (thinking of lung damage by work in mines or the generally much better state of medicine nowadays).
It's just reasonable to go with the times and the growing knowledge we have about things.
Also, in traffic, a lot has been done, I'm thinking of phasing out of leaded fuels, requirement of catalysers in new cars, general tendency to try and make cars that produce less fuel, tax reductions for more economical cars etc. So just as you have to pay more for your privilege to drive a big car, you have to take some inconvenience and smoke outside. Which is good, cause probably it'll make people think twice about every cigarette and maybe skip some.
Konsti, get a friend to watch your drink and keep your seats. That usually works
While it's true that pubs were always a place for drinking and smoking, that originates from a time when much less was known about the health risks of active and passive smoking, and when smoking was a neglectable health issue compared to what people were exposed to every day (thinking of lung damage by work in mines or the generally much better state of medicine nowadays).
It's just reasonable to go with the times and the growing knowledge we have about things.
Also, in traffic, a lot has been done, I'm thinking of phasing out of leaded fuels, requirement of catalysers in new cars, general tendency to try and make cars that produce less fuel, tax reductions for more economical cars etc. So just as you have to pay more for your privilege to drive a big car, you have to take some inconvenience and smoke outside. Which is good, cause probably it'll make people think twice about every cigarette and maybe skip some.
Konsti, get a friend to watch your drink and keep your seats. That usually works
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
lovable smart-ass
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
Posted:
i have no friends.
if i had any, what if my friends are pissed, or hitting on somebody, or being hit on, or passed out, getting their own drinks, making out, off to smoke a bong hit in the toilet, arguing with some old bearded bloke about marxism whilst being barely able to stand,....
u get my point.
i have no friends.
if i had any, what if my friends are pissed, or hitting on somebody, or being hit on, or passed out, getting their own drinks, making out, off to smoke a bong hit in the toilet, arguing with some old bearded bloke about marxism whilst being barely able to stand,....
u get my point.
"is optimism in austria just a lack of information?"
-Alfred Dorfer
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I was assuming that if you wanted a seat kept while smoking you'd be sitting next to someone you wanted to spend time with (which is what I usually do when in the pub with friends). If you don't have friends, take your drink outside with the cig, then just sit wherever when you get back in (or leave your coat on your chair. Also a tactic that's generally successful).
I was assuming that if you wanted a seat kept while smoking you'd be sitting next to someone you wanted to spend time with (which is what I usually do when in the pub with friends). If you don't have friends, take your drink outside with the cig, then just sit wherever when you get back in (or leave your coat on your chair. Also a tactic that's generally successful).
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
lovable smart-ass
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
Posted:
*bangs head against keyboard*
ok
i do have friends.
What i meant was that it creates an inconvienince for people contrary to OWDs statement that it doesnt.
*bangs head against keyboard*
ok
i do have friends.
What i meant was that it creates an inconvienince for people contrary to OWDs statement that it doesnt.
"is optimism in austria just a lack of information?"
-Alfred Dorfer
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
meaning that it's not an actual problem, only less comfortable for smokers? yeah, I got that message :P
meaning that it's not an actual problem, only less comfortable for smokers? yeah, I got that message :P
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
well, i don't feel that strongly about it.
i was just using it as an analogy to something you do seem to care strongly about and show that if you ban one thing based on a 'the greater good' argument then you should carry that out through all aspects of society, not just one.
i drive a car at the weekend to get me around faster and you used to smoke dave - not sure what that says about the validity of our opinions here...
ado - i know there are massive positives to a public smoking ban and agree with them on many levels.
in canada (where its freezing outside) i quite liked the atmosphere that smoke free bars provided - even though it meant freezing me nuts off just to have a smoke!
as a result of the ban, i did smoke a lot less when out drinking and most of the time, we took the opportunity to smoke what we really wanted to instead of cigarettes - if you have to go outside the bar to smoke, you might as well smoke what you want
but i am heavily opposed to nanny states and blanket restictions placed on a society at large is a move towards, not away from this situation.
dave - i can see your smoky pub arugument has a lot of credit to it, but why should a landlord be forced to change the environment he provides for his customers he does not support the change himself?
if banning smoking in pubs ensures that more people enjoy the pub experience like you suggest, why not just leave it as optional - if having a non-smoking pub attracts non-smokers and gives customers an all-round more pleasent experience, landlords would freely choose to not let people smoke in their establishments, wouldn't they?
you say pubs are the primary means of socialising within our culture (which i don't agree with) but taking that premise for now, a limit on our freedoms within a place like that is all the worse.
are we not free to drink and socialise in our own homes?
do pubs not become hotspots for most alcohol related voilent crime?
if the answer to both of these questions is yes, does it not suggest that, like smoking, alcohol should be banned from pubs leaving them as centres to meet and socialise in, free from the negatives that recreational drug use imposes?
seeing as children are not permitted in a lot of pubs anyway, the fact that they are 'the primary means of socialising within our culture' excludes children from gaining social skills until they are of sufficient age to access to them.
following that line of thinking, ban smoking and alcohol in pubs and they are free to become the social centres for the whole of society, not just those that want to be around consumers of alcohol above the age of 16/18/21.
the thing that gets me a little bit antagonised by the idea of a smoking ban is that the evidence for diseases caused by second-hand smoke is terrible.
i don't deny that second-hand smoke may be a cause of disease but i think the research into it is so poor that instead of establishing how much nicotine smoke in the air is a 'safe' level (e.g compare to air samples taken in a city or on the underground system where thousands are expected to work without complaint), the knee-jerk reaction to anti-smoking pressure groups is 'outright public ban'.
cole. x
Written by: onewheeldave
If you feel so strongly about it then get to work- post your opinions on discussion forums, or start up a campaign etc.
I'm not going to disagree with what you've said; personally it's not a cause I'm up for supporting because I feel more strongly about the smoking issue, and prefer to spend time working on that.
well, i don't feel that strongly about it.
i was just using it as an analogy to something you do seem to care strongly about and show that if you ban one thing based on a 'the greater good' argument then you should carry that out through all aspects of society, not just one.
i drive a car at the weekend to get me around faster and you used to smoke dave - not sure what that says about the validity of our opinions here...
ado - i know there are massive positives to a public smoking ban and agree with them on many levels.
in canada (where its freezing outside) i quite liked the atmosphere that smoke free bars provided - even though it meant freezing me nuts off just to have a smoke!
as a result of the ban, i did smoke a lot less when out drinking and most of the time, we took the opportunity to smoke what we really wanted to instead of cigarettes - if you have to go outside the bar to smoke, you might as well smoke what you want
but i am heavily opposed to nanny states and blanket restictions placed on a society at large is a move towards, not away from this situation.
dave - i can see your smoky pub arugument has a lot of credit to it, but why should a landlord be forced to change the environment he provides for his customers he does not support the change himself?
if banning smoking in pubs ensures that more people enjoy the pub experience like you suggest, why not just leave it as optional - if having a non-smoking pub attracts non-smokers and gives customers an all-round more pleasent experience, landlords would freely choose to not let people smoke in their establishments, wouldn't they?
you say pubs are the primary means of socialising within our culture (which i don't agree with) but taking that premise for now, a limit on our freedoms within a place like that is all the worse.
are we not free to drink and socialise in our own homes?
do pubs not become hotspots for most alcohol related voilent crime?
if the answer to both of these questions is yes, does it not suggest that, like smoking, alcohol should be banned from pubs leaving them as centres to meet and socialise in, free from the negatives that recreational drug use imposes?
seeing as children are not permitted in a lot of pubs anyway, the fact that they are 'the primary means of socialising within our culture' excludes children from gaining social skills until they are of sufficient age to access to them.
following that line of thinking, ban smoking and alcohol in pubs and they are free to become the social centres for the whole of society, not just those that want to be around consumers of alcohol above the age of 16/18/21.
the thing that gets me a little bit antagonised by the idea of a smoking ban is that the evidence for diseases caused by second-hand smoke is terrible.
i don't deny that second-hand smoke may be a cause of disease but i think the research into it is so poor that instead of establishing how much nicotine smoke in the air is a 'safe' level (e.g compare to air samples taken in a city or on the underground system where thousands are expected to work without complaint), the knee-jerk reaction to anti-smoking pressure groups is 'outright public ban'.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
those are not really serious arguments are they?
you can't always take your drink outside with you for a start - unless the pub has a beer garden, smokers have to stand in the street leaving their drinks inside (a very bad idea if you are a young woman).
would you argue that having groups of drunk people periodically coming out to stand and smoke outside pubs (which are very often in residential areas) is a good thing?
people that do not even wish to use the pub will have to deal more often with the noise and unrest that having groups of alcohol drinkers on the street creates.
and you must be a very trusting person if leaving your coat unattended in a busy pub seems like a good idea to you!
cole. x
Written by: Birgit
I was assuming that if you wanted a seat kept while smoking you'd be sitting next to someone you wanted to spend time with (which is what I usually do when in the pub with friends). If you don't have friends, take your drink outside with the cig, then just sit wherever when you get back in (or leave your coat on your chair. Also a tactic that's generally successful).
those are not really serious arguments are they?
you can't always take your drink outside with you for a start - unless the pub has a beer garden, smokers have to stand in the street leaving their drinks inside (a very bad idea if you are a young woman).
would you argue that having groups of drunk people periodically coming out to stand and smoke outside pubs (which are very often in residential areas) is a good thing?
people that do not even wish to use the pub will have to deal more often with the noise and unrest that having groups of alcohol drinkers on the street creates.
and you must be a very trusting person if leaving your coat unattended in a busy pub seems like a good idea to you!
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
my arguments were as serious as Konsti's, Coleman
The way the argumentation went you would've thought the next suggestion might be to install flaps into pub chairs so you won't have to leave your beer/jacket/seat alone when going to the loo.
my arguments were as serious as Konsti's, Coleman
The way the argumentation went you would've thought the next suggestion might be to install flaps into pub chairs so you won't have to leave your beer/jacket/seat alone when going to the loo.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
lovable smart-ass
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
785 posts
Location: vineyards, Vienna, Austria
Posted:
thats a pretty good idea actually..........
alright,
has anybody thought of installing better airconditioning? or those things they have at barcelona airport?
ever noticed how everybody smokes there and you never smell it? i tried it out and lit up in the middle of theduty free shopping area (thats illegal in most airports) and the smoke seemed to be dissappearing right after i exhaled. and no i wasnt on drugs.
i think they work with ions or something.
but they would do the job.
so both smoker and non-smoker can enjoy their pints in happy unison.
*the end*
thats a pretty good idea actually..........
alright,
has anybody thought of installing better airconditioning? or those things they have at barcelona airport?
ever noticed how everybody smokes there and you never smell it? i tried it out and lit up in the middle of theduty free shopping area (thats illegal in most airports) and the smoke seemed to be dissappearing right after i exhaled. and no i wasnt on drugs.
i think they work with ions or something.
but they would do the job.
so both smoker and non-smoker can enjoy their pints in happy unison.
*the end*
"is optimism in austria just a lack of information?"
-Alfred Dorfer
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
fair enough birgit
"meaning that it's not an actual problem, only less comfortable for smokers? yeah, I got that message".
but konsti's argument was not simply 'smokers might lose their seats' was it?
he was countering the point that smokers won't mind leaving a pub to smoke because dave didn't find it a problem when he was at college.
konsti also presented several real problems that a uk-wide workplace smoking ban could cause.
so, if i may, i'll ask the question another way: do you believe the only 'problem' that could possibly occur by banning smoking in pubs throughout the uk would be that pubs may be a little "less comfortable for smokers"?
cole. x
fair enough birgit
"meaning that it's not an actual problem, only less comfortable for smokers? yeah, I got that message".
but konsti's argument was not simply 'smokers might lose their seats' was it?
he was countering the point that smokers won't mind leaving a pub to smoke because dave didn't find it a problem when he was at college.
konsti also presented several real problems that a uk-wide workplace smoking ban could cause.
so, if i may, i'll ask the question another way: do you believe the only 'problem' that could possibly occur by banning smoking in pubs throughout the uk would be that pubs may be a little "less comfortable for smokers"?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I just browsed the thread and couldn't find the problems a uk-wide smoking ban could cause that you mentioned... could you quote that bit please?
As to the pubs: yes. I think compared with all the inconvenience smoking causes non-smokers asking them to do it outside is neglectable, if inconvenient. I can't imagine how that would cause trouble... maybe if drunk people wanna start a fight getting some fresh air from time to time might actually help! I believe if someone really wants to start a fight though they will, and the people who'd do it while smoking outside would be the same people who'd start the fight in the pub or on the way home.
I've grown up with one of my parents smoking, and actually I personally don't mind sitting in a smoky place that much. I like the smell of smoke, not of cold ashes though. ick.
But I do believe that passive smoking IS dangerous; even if some studies are crap (which I can't judge cause I don't know enough about them) there are cancerogenic substances in the air. With anything mutagenic it's not like with normal poisons (i.e. you have a tolerable safe dose), but any one molecule can cause you cancer if you're unlucky. So while I'm not trying to say everyone who sits in a smoky pub will die of cancer, I can understand anyone who doesn't want to increase his risk.
Also, many people simply don't like the smell of smoke, or feel virtually sick. According to my toxicology prof, half the headaches after nights in pubs are not due to too much alcohol, but to mild carbon monoxide poisoning from smoke in the air.
Anyways, I'm going off-topic there, I was just trying to support my point that by smoking you're exposing people not only to the health problems that come with it (or not), but also to an irritating smell and breathing sensation. Imagine being in a pub where half the people have been eating beans and keep firing smelly farts in the air all the time and enjoying themselves while you don't, you'd WISH they'd go outside or to the loo for it!
I just browsed the thread and couldn't find the problems a uk-wide smoking ban could cause that you mentioned... could you quote that bit please?
As to the pubs: yes. I think compared with all the inconvenience smoking causes non-smokers asking them to do it outside is neglectable, if inconvenient. I can't imagine how that would cause trouble... maybe if drunk people wanna start a fight getting some fresh air from time to time might actually help! I believe if someone really wants to start a fight though they will, and the people who'd do it while smoking outside would be the same people who'd start the fight in the pub or on the way home.
I've grown up with one of my parents smoking, and actually I personally don't mind sitting in a smoky place that much. I like the smell of smoke, not of cold ashes though. ick.
But I do believe that passive smoking IS dangerous; even if some studies are crap (which I can't judge cause I don't know enough about them) there are cancerogenic substances in the air. With anything mutagenic it's not like with normal poisons (i.e. you have a tolerable safe dose), but any one molecule can cause you cancer if you're unlucky. So while I'm not trying to say everyone who sits in a smoky pub will die of cancer, I can understand anyone who doesn't want to increase his risk.
Also, many people simply don't like the smell of smoke, or feel virtually sick. According to my toxicology prof, half the headaches after nights in pubs are not due to too much alcohol, but to mild carbon monoxide poisoning from smoke in the air.
Anyways, I'm going off-topic there, I was just trying to support my point that by smoking you're exposing people not only to the health problems that come with it (or not
), but also to an irritating smell and breathing sensation. Imagine being in a pub where half the people have been eating beans and keep firing smelly farts in the air all the time and enjoying themselves while you don't, you'd WISH they'd go outside or to the loo for it! "vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
car exhaust fumes and kerosene fumes contain carcinogens too - if it only takes one molecule and some bad luck, standing too close to a bus or a firespinner could mean you are just as at risk as you are in a smoky pub?
but i see your point - i don't drive my car around or spin fire in pubs
still, the pollution levels in cities is terrible.
on some lines of the london underground the pollution levels are worse than they are above ground at midday and people still work down there - and millions of us travel on them each week.
ever had black tube bogies? ewwwww...
just to clarify, konsti only stated that there would be 'inconvenience' caused by making smokers leave pubs, not problems.
it was me that said there would possibly be negative effects to banning smoking in pubs.
i'm the one who is arguing that the issue is not black and white on all moral grounds.
the possible problems caused by pub smoking bans (smoking is already banned in the vast majority of uk workplaces already - at the choice of the employer i might add) are exactly those i and konsti mentioned (original quotes below):
- increased noise outside pubs at times other than the usual noisy closing time
- pub patrons outside pubs but not on pub property
- women forced to go outside but not allowed to take drinks with them (ever heard of rohypnol...?)
- women outside pubs in dangerous areas - a landlord could not be held responsible if a woman is attacked on their doorstep...
and the real question... is this all
now?
cole. x
car exhaust fumes and kerosene fumes contain carcinogens too - if it only takes one molecule and some bad luck, standing too close to a bus or a firespinner could mean you are just as at risk as you are in a smoky pub?
but i see your point - i don't drive my car around or spin fire in pubs
still, the pollution levels in cities is terrible.
on some lines of the london underground the pollution levels are worse than they are above ground at midday and people still work down there - and millions of us travel on them each week.
ever had black tube bogies? ewwwww...
just to clarify, konsti only stated that there would be 'inconvenience' caused by making smokers leave pubs, not problems.
it was me that said there would possibly be negative effects to banning smoking in pubs.
i'm the one who is arguing that the issue is not black and white on all moral grounds.
the possible problems caused by pub smoking bans (smoking is already banned in the vast majority of uk workplaces already - at the choice of the employer i might add) are exactly those i and konsti mentioned (original quotes below):
- increased noise outside pubs at times other than the usual noisy closing time
- pub patrons outside pubs but not on pub property
- women forced to go outside but not allowed to take drinks with them (ever heard of rohypnol...?)
- women outside pubs in dangerous areas - a landlord could not be held responsible if a woman is attacked on their doorstep...
and the real question... is this all
now?cole. x
Written by: Konsti
...theres a risk of ur drink being unattended...
...so do u want most of the pub lounging outside in the streets...
please dont tell me that there is no inconvenience created for smokers...
Written by: coleman
would you argue that having groups of drunk people periodically coming out to stand and smoke outside pubs (which are very often in residential areas) is a good thing?
people that do not even wish to use the pub will have to deal more often with the noise and unrest that having groups of alcohol drinkers on the street creates.
and you must be a very trusting person if leaving your coat unattended in a busy pub seems like a good idea to you!
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Wow, a lot's been said in a few hours.
Firstly, I acknowledge that I didn't fully think through the inconveniences of having to go outside to smoke- cheers for giving the opinion of the disgruntled smoker Konsti.
Having said that though,my opinion hasn't changed because
1. Although some smokers will feel inconvenienced, I believe that others won't. From what I understand of places that have initiated smoking bans,on the whole, both smokers and non-smokers feel it to be an improvement.
2. Even if it is inconvenient for some smokers, I consider this to be more than offset by the immediate great bonuses for non-smokers; looking further down the line, IMO smoking bans in pubs can only help with encouraging some smokers to quit, and in preventing some of the next generation to avoid falling into the smoking trap.
50 years ago smoking was seen as the 'norm', appealing, sexy, macho etc (and, indeed, aggressively marketed as such)- currently the general view is a more realistic one, smoking is seen by most as an insiduous and destructive practice.
I want smoking to be seen for what it is, because, when smokers are seen as trapped, helpless addicts, suddenly the next generation can be spared the delusory 'coolness' factor that helps suck people in.
Imagine what message the next generation would get if heroin addicts weren't pitied social outcasts, but instead, on walking into a pub, over 50% of the people inside were shooting up with needles.
This may sound harsh, but, IMO, the 'problem' with smoking (which is that people smoke), outweighs any problems that individual smokers may feel they are experiencing.
IMO, if smokers want to deal with problems, it would be best to start with addressing their own very substantial problem i.e. that they are addicted to a substance which will likely kill them (possibly in a long, painful and drawn out fashion whilst everyone they love have their hearts broken by what they are forced to witness).
That they are financing huge and corrupt corporations whose product culls 4,000,000 people worldwide annualy, every one of those deaths being totally unnecessary, and which aggressively markets, pushes and promotes that product to any third world culture that lacks the knowledge and moral stance to clamp down on that marketing.
IMO, addicted smokers, should have the decency to feel some kind of social responsibility- they, better than anyone, know how easy it is for young people to make that fundamental mistake which is the basis of the worldwide epidemic of smoking- the belief that you can 'toy' with, 'experiement' with, and then walk away from; this most entrapping and addictive of substances.
As smokers, what would you wish of the next generation- that they fall into the very same pointless, wasteful and, for many, ultimately fatal; habit?
Or would you like them to see smoking for what it really is; so they can see it as a quaint historical curiousity that, in the past, people 'chose' to become slaves to a substance?
I fully understand that many smokers cannot, at this moment in time, free themselves from their addiction- and that's OK, it's the very nature of smoking that it's incredibly easy to get into, yet almost impossibly difficult to escape from (I speak from much experience).
But surely it's best to face up to the truth, and to do the very best you can, to at least not promote, in any way, smoking as being good or desirable.
How many times have I been to a 'poi in the park', and seen a bunch of children looking on in absolute awe, eyes wide; at what they perceive as the coolest of people, juggling, spinning fire etc.
And then, right in the middle, there's some jerk attempting to spin whilst casually dangling a roll-up out of his/her mouth, and endeavouring to look cool.
What kind of message does that give?
(and I'm not saying don't smoke at spins; just that it's surely better to do it sat down, out of the central focus, and not in front of impressionable youngsters- and, this is of course... my opinion only..though a very strong one.)
Wow, a lot's been said in a few hours.
Firstly, I acknowledge that I didn't fully think through the inconveniences of having to go outside to smoke- cheers for giving the opinion of the disgruntled smoker Konsti.
Having said that though,my opinion hasn't changed because
1. Although some smokers will feel inconvenienced, I believe that others won't. From what I understand of places that have initiated smoking bans,on the whole, both smokers and non-smokers feel it to be an improvement.
2. Even if it is inconvenient for some smokers, I consider this to be more than offset by the immediate great bonuses for non-smokers; looking further down the line, IMO smoking bans in pubs can only help with encouraging some smokers to quit, and in preventing some of the next generation to avoid falling into the smoking trap.
50 years ago smoking was seen as the 'norm', appealing, sexy, macho etc (and, indeed, aggressively marketed as such)- currently the general view is a more realistic one, smoking is seen by most as an insiduous and destructive practice.
I want smoking to be seen for what it is, because, when smokers are seen as trapped, helpless addicts, suddenly the next generation can be spared the delusory 'coolness' factor that helps suck people in.
Imagine what message the next generation would get if heroin addicts weren't pitied social outcasts, but instead, on walking into a pub, over 50% of the people inside were shooting up with needles.
This may sound harsh, but, IMO, the 'problem' with smoking (which is that people smoke), outweighs any problems that individual smokers may feel they are experiencing.
IMO, if smokers want to deal with problems, it would be best to start with addressing their own very substantial problem i.e. that they are addicted to a substance which will likely kill them (possibly in a long, painful and drawn out fashion whilst everyone they love have their hearts broken by what they are forced to witness).
That they are financing huge and corrupt corporations whose product culls 4,000,000 people worldwide annualy, every one of those deaths being totally unnecessary, and which aggressively markets, pushes and promotes that product to any third world culture that lacks the knowledge and moral stance to clamp down on that marketing.
IMO, addicted smokers, should have the decency to feel some kind of social responsibility- they, better than anyone, know how easy it is for young people to make that fundamental mistake which is the basis of the worldwide epidemic of smoking- the belief that you can 'toy' with, 'experiement' with, and then walk away from; this most entrapping and addictive of substances.
As smokers, what would you wish of the next generation- that they fall into the very same pointless, wasteful and, for many, ultimately fatal; habit?
Or would you like them to see smoking for what it really is; so they can see it as a quaint historical curiousity that, in the past, people 'chose' to become slaves to a substance?
I fully understand that many smokers cannot, at this moment in time, free themselves from their addiction- and that's OK, it's the very nature of smoking that it's incredibly easy to get into, yet almost impossibly difficult to escape from (I speak from much experience).
But surely it's best to face up to the truth, and to do the very best you can, to at least not promote, in any way, smoking as being good or desirable.
How many times have I been to a 'poi in the park', and seen a bunch of children looking on in absolute awe, eyes wide; at what they perceive as the coolest of people, juggling, spinning fire etc.
And then, right in the middle, there's some jerk attempting to spin whilst casually dangling a roll-up out of his/her mouth, and endeavouring to look cool.
What kind of message does that give?
(and I'm not saying don't smoke at spins; just that it's surely better to do it sat down, out of the central focus, and not in front of impressionable youngsters- and, this is of course... my opinion only..though a very strong one.)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com