At Last. Smoking To Be Banned In My Country.

[Scott McD]

About time. In 2006, smoking will be banned in all pubs & clubs in Scotland.

So i might be able to go out now, and not come home smelling like a fucking ashtray...


Hoooray !!!

[Ross]

That sure will be nice.... I hate those fuckers who don't care about anyone else other than themselves.

The ones who turn round and blow it in your face so its not hanging around them! They piss me off.

[Spudman]

i think its a good idea but i rekon that there is going to be major uproar and serious difficulties enforcing this. it'll probabily end up in shit loads of people being fined and stuff. i dont think they should ban it completely but just have more dedicated smoking areas as most of my friends are going to be frustrated as fuck when we go out on the piss without a fag

[Spudman]

mind you tho some big fuck head put a big ass fag burn in my favourite shirt the other day when i was in a club which made me wanna smash his face in so i guess it will prevent this happening.

[Ross]

I think they should do what they do in airports. They have a dedicated smoking zone where they have huge extractor fans which just pulls all the smoke in.

[Scott McD]

Yup, i hate being in a club and getting fag burns on my clothes.

People can sit on a flight for hours at a time and not smoke, so they can go out for a few hours and not smoke either.

If not, fuck them...

[BRISK]

Wow, this is happening all over the world. I've heard about smoking being banned in restaurants, bars/clubs in US, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and now Scotland.

[Scott McD]

And it's about time...

[Mike Okitch]

1- smoke free pubs

2- McEwans flowing freely

I need one more and I'm getting a plane ticket

[Gynecologist]

Originally posted by Scott McD
About time. In 2006, smoking will be banned in all pubs & clubs in Scotland.

So i might be able to go out now, and not come home smelling like a fucking ashtray...


Hoooray !!!

Good for you guys! Smoking is the most moronic activity in the history of mankind. I should know, I used to do it.

[Repetitive Monkey]

I understand the sentiment, but what I don't understand is why it is still politically incorrect to harrass fat fucks about their damage to their own bodies and society and the environment in general.



PLEASE LAY DOWN AND DIE, YOU RETARDED, EGOMANIACAL, NON-PRODUCING OVER-CONSUMERS

[BIGTYMER]

Originally posted by Repetitive Monkey
I understand the sentiment, but what I don't understand is why it is still politically incorrect to harrass fat fucks about their damage to their own bodies and society and the environment in general.



PLEASE LAY DOWN AND DIE, YOU RETARDED, EGOMANIACAL, NON-PRODUCING OVER-CONSUMERS

Oh my god... Its fucking huge!

[Scott McD]

Holy fuck !!

[sperbonzo]

I'm not a smoker, but personally it makes no sense to me how someone can tell me that I can't have people using a legal product in my private business. (Pubs and resturants are not public property, someone OWNS them). It's the same as telling me that I can't have someone smoke in my house.

If a business owner wants to ban smoking, then they should be allowed to, since it is THEIR own business, but if they want to allow it, and smoking tobacco is legal, then what right do other people have to tell them that they can't have people smoke in their own private business?

If an individual doesn't want to go into a place that smells like smoke, then they shouldn't. If a pub wants to ban smoking to appeal to the anti-smoking crowd, then they can.

It's almost like saying that since some people are offended by the smell of beer, and some are actually allergic to it, then pubs should be banned from serving it, as apposed to people just choosing not to go to pubs.

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
I'm not a smoker, but personally it makes no sense to me how someone can tell me that I can't have people using a legal product in my private business. (Pubs and resturants are not public property, someone OWNS them). It's the same as telling me that I can't have someone smoke in my house.

If a business owner wants to ban smoking, then they should be allowed to, since it is THEIR own business, but if they want to allow it, and smoking tobacco is legal, then what right do other people have to tell them that they can't have people smoke in their own private business?

If an individual doesn't want to go into a place that smells like smoke, then they shouldn't. If a pub wants to ban smoking to appeal to the anti-smoking crowd, then they can.

It's almost like saying that since some people are offended by the smell of beer, and some are actually allergic to it, then pubs should be banned from serving it, as apposed to people just choosing not to go to pubs.

No kidding, but logic and individual freedom is not a priority right now.

[JamesK2]

That's good. Smoke smells like smoke

[axelcat]

Originally posted by Scott McD
About time. In 2006, smoking will be banned in all pubs & clubs in Scotland.

So i might be able to go out now, and not come home smelling like a fucking ashtray...


Hoooray !!!

[Rich]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
I'm not a smoker, but personally it makes no sense to me how someone can tell me that I can't have people using a legal product in my private business. (Pubs and resturants are not public property, someone OWNS them). It's the same as telling me that I can't have someone smoke in my house.

If a business owner wants to ban smoking, then they should be allowed to, since it is THEIR own business, but if they want to allow it, and smoking tobacco is legal, then what right do other people have to tell them that they can't have people smoke in their own private business?

If an individual doesn't want to go into a place that smells like smoke, then they shouldn't. If a pub wants to ban smoking to appeal to the anti-smoking crowd, then they can.

It's almost like saying that since some people are offended by the smell of beer, and some are actually allergic to it, then pubs should be banned from serving it, as apposed to people just choosing not to go to pubs.

I don't think I've ever agreed with you before, but you took the words right out of my mouth on this.

[Scott McD]

If passive smoking wasn't an issue, then yeah that would make sense.


But because of this, that's saying that yeah you can go to a pub, just accept it if you end up with lung cancer because others around you may be smoking.

Sorry, not for me...

[volante]

Originally posted by Mike Okitch
1- smoke free pubs

2- McEwans flowing freely

I need one more and I'm getting a plane ticket

3 - Soft Scottish accents

[xclusive]

I think that it should be illegal it kills more people than anything else but the tobacco companies buy people in government to keep it legal...

[Sly]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
I'm not a smoker, but personally it makes no sense to me how someone can tell me that I can't have people using a legal product in my private business. (Pubs and resturants are not public property, someone OWNS them). It's the same as telling me that I can't have someone smoke in my house.

If a business owner wants to ban smoking, then they should be allowed to, since it is THEIR own business, but if they want to allow it, and smoking tobacco is legal, then what right do other people have to tell them that they can't have people smoke in their own private business?

If an individual doesn't want to go into a place that smells like smoke, then they shouldn't. If a pub wants to ban smoking to appeal to the anti-smoking crowd, then they can.

It's almost like saying that since some people are offended by the smell of beer, and some are actually allergic to it, then pubs should be banned from serving it, as apposed to people just choosing not to go to pubs.

I hate cigarettes. Hate them. But I do agree. I go to concerts fully expecting to leave smelling like smoke. If it bothered me THAT much, I simply wouldn't go to them anymore. Many restaurants already have non-smoking policies and non-smoking areas due to customer demands, I don't see why a government mandate is necessary or how it doesn't impose on the rights of private businesses.

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by xclusive
I think that it should be illegal it kills more people than anything else but the tobacco companies buy people in government to keep it legal...

I suppose you have documentation to back up your paranoid claim?

But why don't we also ban such things as not wearing a helmet at all times, physical sports, and civilian ladder use while we have the trend in society that the government should resume responsibility for individual freedom and responsibility any way?

[Joe Citizen]

I think they should ban alcohol at pubs as well as smoking.

Let's fact it, alcohol causes violence and that's far more of an immediate threat to people than some second hand smoke.

[Scott McD]

Someone drinking alcohol beside you doesn't have any effect on you.


Someone smoking beside you affects you because you inhale the smoke.



Difference

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
I think they should ban alcohol at pubs as well as smoking.

Let's fact it, alcohol causes violence and that's far more of an immediate threat to people than some second hand smoke.

Of course you do, you are a communist and despise individual freedom and things such as free markets.

You fucking cry-babies are slowly but surely turning western civilization into some 1984 scenario.

[Sly]

Originally posted by Scott McD
Someone drinking alcohol beside you doesn't have any effect on you.


Someone smoking beside you affects you because you inhale the smoke.



Difference

Ahhh, now I see. I didn't realize somebody was forcing you to sit next to a smoker.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Repetitive Monkey
Of course you do, you are a communist and despise individual freedom and things such as free markets.

You fucking cry-babies are slowly but surely turning western civilization into some 1984 scenario.

Sarcasm is hard for simpletons to grasp I know.

[volante]

Originally posted by Repetitive Monkey
Of course you do, you are a communist and despise individual freedom and things such as free markets.

You fucking cry-babies are slowly but surely turning western civilization into some 1984 scenario.

Communist perhaps, but at least he knows what "sarcasm" means...

[BRISK]

From what I've read, these anti-smoking laws haven nothing to do with customers. They're about workplace safety. Many countries have laws that say employers must provide a non-hazardous working environment.

[infatu]

I think they should just lock us all in our own houses. That way no one would be hit by a car, nobody would slip on the ice, and it would put an end to all the unnecessary deaths caused by walking into closed doors.

The sign at the pool says "Enter at own Risk". Why won't the governments apply this to everyday life?

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
Sarcasm is hard for simpletons to grasp I know.

It wasn't hard at all to believe that you believed in this crap considering your usual posts on this forum.

[GatorB]

Originally posted by Scott McD
About time. In 2006, smoking will be banned in all pubs & clubs in Scotland.

So i might be able to go out now, and not come home smelling like a fucking ashtray...


Hoooray !!!

You are still allowed to fuck sheep right?

[dcortez]

We've had no smoking laws for various sectors in my province and country for some time and there is always an adjustment period for both sides.

Someone pointed out that the idea of banning a legal product in a private business is ridiculous, and while there are many sides to that argument, the following makes sense to me about such laws:

Tobacco is a legal substance.

Tobacco is also a proven lethal substance to smokers (that's their choice/problem) and non-smokers.

One could argue that non-smokers should just stay away from places where smoking is conducted. That stands to reason.

On the other hand, much in the way we regulate safety in businesses (fire safety, earthquake safety, protection from dangerous materials), disallowing smoking in places of business (which are a private type of public place) is no different than not allowing cancer causing materials to be used in dangerous ways (eg. asbestos in ducts etc.).

The one funny (kind of) side effect we have experienced when smoking was banned from government workplaces was that smokers would congregate at the front of the building to conduct their smoking creating a gauntlet covered in an unbelievable thick cloud of smoke which all the (non-smokers) had to go through to get in and out of the building.

In some ways, this was worse than some distributed smoke here and there.

Who would have figured?

-Dino

[Scott McD]

Originally posted by GatorB
You are still allowed to fuck sheep right?

Yes.

The day they ban that is the day i leave the country...

[Scott McD]

Originally posted by Sly
Ahhh, now I see. I didn't realize somebody was forcing you to sit next to a smoker.

They aren't.

But you don't have much choice sometimes but to inhale the smoke when you are in an area filled with people smoking, smoke does travel you know...

[volante]

Originally posted by Scott McD
Yes.

The day they ban that is the day i leave the country...

...and move to Wales

[GatorB]

Originally posted by Sly
Ahhh, now I see. I didn't realize somebody was forcing you to sit next to a smoker.

Oh ok, using that logic if I ever sit next to you in a restuarant you won't mind if I take a piss and a dump in a bucket right next to your table right? After all no one would be forcing you to stay.

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by GatorB
Oh ok, using that logic if I ever sit next to you in a restuarant you won't mind if I take a piss and a dump in a bucket right next to your table right? After all no one would be forcing you to stay.

One thing is publically accepted in society and the other is not. So that's not a good comparison.

[canplayer]

they were talking about doing that in Quebec, I hope it comes here too. People reak who smoke, and their hands smell like ass.

[CamChicks]

I moved to to a place in the USA that doesn't allow smoking in restaurants/bars. It's a delight. I can breathe!

Originally posted by sperbonzo
I'm not a smoker, but personally it makes no sense to me how someone can tell me that I can't have people using a legal product in my private business. (Pubs and resturants are not public property, someone OWNS them).

It makes a lot of sense if Scotland offers their citizens free public healthcare (I assume they do?) that they would try to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

[GatorB]

Originally posted by Repetitive Monkey
One thing is publically accepted in society and the other is not. So that's not a good comparison.

Well considering the expansion of these non-smoking laws it seems smoking isn't becoming too acceptable either. Both are public health risks, thus the anology is valid. ust because you are addicted to crack doesn't mean you can do it in front of me at a restaurant

[freeadultcontent]

Some of you all have some seriously wierd and or socialistic views.
Private business should not be mandated by such social laws, period, end of story. These types of laws are just forcing ones personal views of selfish people onto another, to make things better for the selfish.
Simple points:
Private business's should be able to dictate if their establishment should or should not be smoke free.
Capitalism shows if there is enough of a demand for smoke free establishments then they will emerge.
Employee's can make the choice to work in a smoke free or smoker enviroment, nobody is forcing them to work there.

If you wish to argue the above points then please be prepared to tell me why there should not be inclosed oxygen inriched bus stops for those waiting for a public transporation bus, since we all know those produce some very nasty vapors.

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by GatorB
Well considering the expansion of these non-smoking laws it seems smoking isn't becoming too acceptable either. Both are public health risks, thus the anology is valid. ust because you are addicted to crack doesn't mean you can do it in front of me at a restaurant

I disagree, in all human societies defecating publically always has been and probably always will be a blatant offense in itself. You don't take offense to smoking in the same way, not without massive amounts of brainwashing.

Any way, following your logic, anything that possibly could be turned into an offense, should be. Is that the way to create a positive and open society?

[Repetitive Monkey]

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Some of you all have some seriously wierd and or socialistic views.
Private business should not be mandated by such social laws, period, end of story. These types of laws are just forcing ones personal views of selfish people onto another, to make things better for the selfish.
Simple points:
Private business's should be able to dictate if their establishment should or should not be smoke free.
Capitalism shows if there is enough of a demand for smoke free establishments then they will emerge.
Employee's can make the choice to work in a smoke free or smoker enviroment, nobody is forcing them to work there.

If you wish to argue the above points then please be prepared to tell me why there should not be inclosed oxygen inriched bus stops for those waiting for a public transporation bus, since we all know those produce some very nasty vapors.

This man is my new friend. How's it going, buddy?

[Doctor Dre]

Good . They are talking about doing it here

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by CamChicks
It makes a lot of sense if Scotland offers their citizens free public healthcare (I assume they do?) that they would try to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

They better ban cheeseburgers too then.

[GatorB]

Originally posted by Repetitive Monkey
I disagree, in all human societies defecating publically always has been and probably always will be a blatant offense in itself

I believe we are talking about Scotland.

Any way, following your logic, anything that possibly could be turned into an offense, should be. Is that the way to create a positive and open society?

Burping an farting in public are offensive, but they aren't going to give me cancer. Anyways I find it offenseive that a guy smokes for 50 years then has health problems at 65 and gets medicare to pay for most of his medial care. I, the tax payer, of course pays for Medicare. Smoke all you want but don't ask the tax payer to pay for your cancer treatment OK?

[volante]

Originally posted by CamChicks
It makes a lot of sense if Scotland offers their citizens free public healthcare (I assume they do?) that they would try to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

In the UK, the tax revenue generated from the sale of tobacco products MORE THAN pays for the healthcare for the entire population.

[Mike Okitch]

Tobacco is legal.

But so are chain saws.