Smoking bans | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 298 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614130
Today 2
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
Smoking bans
 

offline thodob from Bergen (Norway) on 2005-10-09 15:34 [#01745294]
Points: 2143 Status: Lurker



The only problem with the new law here in Norway (ban of
smoking in clubs, pubs etc) is that now it smell like shit
instead.
Use deo and perfume when you are together with other people
for gods sake! And dont fart on the dancefloor!


 

offline vlari from beyond the valley of the LOLs on 2005-10-09 15:52 [#01745301]
Points: 13915 Status: Regular | Followup to thodob: #01745294



I always fart on the dancefloor


 

offline Aesthetics from the IDM Kiosk on 2005-10-09 16:04 [#01745304]
Points: 6796 Status: Lurker



Next step:

No cars with combustion engine allowed in crowded cities.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2005-10-09 16:13 [#01745310]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Aesthetics: #01745304 | Show recordbag



that would be awesome!

or.. rather.. only collective traffic and supply trucks for
the shops.


 

offline avart from nomo' on 2005-10-09 16:30 [#01745316]
Points: 1764 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01745310



I agree totally...


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2005-10-10 04:02 [#01745586]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Well folks, if you believe in "health and safety" and other
general EU political correctness/human rights guff, you
can't really seperate this from that. This isn't a total ban
on smoking in the UK as I_x_ten's rather sensationalist post
described. More a ban of it in pubs/restaurants, which IMO,
is no great hardship for smokers (they can smoke outside)
and is a great boon if you work in a pub/club. I used to
work as a waiter and didn't like smoke then either, but as I
needed the money, I had to endure the smoke. Sure, for the
year or so I did it, I'm likely not to have a significantly
increased risk of lung cancer etc. from it, but you have to
remember that for some people, waiting/bartending is a
career and these people would be at risk. We don't tolerate
unsafe use of asbestos in the building trade, or paint dust
without masks in garages, what's the difference here?

Next, I'd like to see a ban on smoking in hotels and B&Bs.
Despite putting "non smoking" on my requests for hotels, I
quite regularly end up in a smoking room for business and
aside from the room and bed stinking of smoke, your clothes
end up smelling of it just from being in the room. Smokers
may argue it doesn't smell bad, but that's because their
sense of smell has been eroded by smoking.

Lots of my friends smoke and if I'm over a mates house, or
even if a friend who smokes is over mine, that's fine and I
have no problem with smoke at house parties. What I do
object to, is suffering smoke for a complete stranger's sake
and that when I want to eat out (which I need to quite often
because of my job), if I was fussy about it, I'd often not
be able to eat in many places as "non smoking" sections are
only feet away.

The argument "non smokers should go elsewhere" is a
nonsense: Smokers are the minority and they're the ones
causing the pollution. Thinking others should be
inconvenienced by your habit is the same selfish mentality
that says "I can play my music as loud as I want and other
people should move away from me


 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2005-10-10 04:55 [#01745605]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #01745586



There are so many fucking wankerish statements in your post,
i don't even know where to begin. Let me take some time and
soak it all in.


 

offline Xeron from London (United Kingdom) on 2005-10-10 05:02 [#01745610]
Points: 2638 Status: Regular | Followup to bill_hicks: #01745605



don't you mean- smoke it all in.


 

offline DeleriousWeasel from Guam on 2005-10-10 05:03 [#01745611]
Points: 2953 Status: Regular | Followup to Xeron: #01745610



Fav -

you lose


 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2005-10-10 05:37 [#01745616]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker



It's good to see that you are so cool and down with your
mates that you let them smoke in your company. I bet your
pals really appreciate that. At least their smoke isn't
like that evil strangers smoke. That's the bad smoke.
Non-smokers seem to think that they have a god given fucking
right to live for ever. Listen pal, we live in an industrial
country. The air is filled with contaminants and
carcinogens. Go and live in fucking outer mongolia if you
want pure 100% GOD GIVEN fucking air.

Pubs sell drugs that kill thousands every day. It's a
fucking mans game going to a pub. You're not going there to
chomp on your Tofu and go on the treadmill for half an hour.
MEN go to fucking pubs. Simple as that. You ever see
pictures of Tony Blair wincing as he pretends to enjoy a
pint in a pub? I bet you fucking look like that every time
you enter a pub. Guys like you seem to think you have a GOD
GIVEN right to walk and go anywhere you want. Well you
fucking don't. Stay out of our pubs, ponce.


 

offline uzim on 2005-10-10 05:47 [#01745618]
Points: 17716 Status: Lurker | Followup to mylittlesister: #01745019



i'm not a smoker, but i find this measure really somewhat
dictatorial-ish...
i'm against it. what's next, banning alcohol?!

"some places need that smell of smoke... particularly
jazz clubs."

> this may sound silly but i agree.


 

offline i_x_ten from arsemuncher on 2005-10-10 06:34 [#01745658]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular | Followup to Ceri JC: #01745586



yo ceri, that wasn't me being sensationalist, i was letting
the article speak for itself, which clearly outlines the
conditions of the ban. i can't be held responsible if people
didnt bother to read it and misinterpreted.

also i am somewhat dissapointed by all the name calling in
this thread.

also, all you non smokers will soon have all wetherspoons
pubs as non smoking, and i'm sure most branded chain pubs
will be the first to follow suit

also i'm actually going to try and quit smoking today and
seel how i feel about this issue in a week or so, provided
i'm successful

also uhm, oh never mind


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2005-10-10 07:09 [#01745672]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to uzim: #01745618 | Show recordbag



you can't fucking compare alcohol and smoke.

smoke (directly) harms other people upon consumption while
alcohol doesn't.

i_x: the name calling is a way of answering the childish
notion some smokers have that they should be allowed to
smoke everywhere and non-smokers just have to conform. This
notion can only be replied with a good healthy "FUCK THE
FUCK OFF!"


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2005-10-10 07:11 [#01745674]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01745672 | Show recordbag



oh.. and before aynone says that non-smokers are equally
childish, wanting smokers to conform to their non-smoking
policy, I have two answers: "To NOT smoke doesn't hurt
anyone. To smoke does." and "FUCK OFF!"


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2005-10-10 07:23 [#01745683]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to i_x_ten: #01745658 | Show recordbag



Come on mate, surely you can see how the sentence, "looks
like the UK is going to get a complete ban on smoking
after all."
could be construed as meaning there's a ban
of smoking everywhere in the UK and not just in
pubs/restaurants, etc.

Of course, I did go on to read the article and realised that
wasn't the case, I was just saying it seemed a bit of a
dramatic way to get the debate going (which has since proven
to be interesting ;-)

RE: lumpenprol's point (interesting first post: Welcome to
the board) "As for the people working at
bars/pubs who are non-smokers and are worried about the
effects of constant second-hand smoke, they should just find

a different occupation."
I disagree. As a teenager, the
only job available to me that I could work a decent amount
of hours in, that I could fit around school times, was
waiting.

Bill: My distinction between the smoke of friends and
strangers is that I'm happy to endure a slight degree of
discomfort for a friend, much like I'm happy to get them a
drink when they're broke, etc. whereas I don't see why I
should have to tolerate being put upon by total strangers.

Yes there are carcinogens from cars and industry, but:
a) The people who benefit from both those things are the
majority (we live in a democracy- the idea is that what most
people want/what is good for most people, goes)
b) Both of those things serve a purpose and our current way
of life and standard of living would not be possible without
them. Smoking is entirely recreational and serves no purpose
to the masses as a whole.

Regarding your comparison to alcohol, dalcohol itself is not
a nuisance to the public at large and again, people who
enjoy a drink are the majority.

Let's be honest, most people start smoking to look hard and
fit in with the cool kids when they're at school, get
addicted and are too weak to give it up, so it continues
into adult life. Really, what is it that made you try that
first cigarette?

For the record: I used to smoke, before I g


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2005-10-10 07:33 [#01745689]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #01745683 | Show recordbag



well.. though I agree with most of your points, the majority
argument doesn't stick (and especially not when it comes to
the car and exhaust problem). the majority isn't always
right, nor is it the majoritys right to impose upon
the minority their belief. That would kind of justify
america (or any majority) going to war against any other
country (minority) in the world with less inhaibtants than
america.

the reason for banning smoking isn't because the majority
doesn't smoke - it's because smoke hurts people who haven't
chosen to hurt themselves by way of smoke.


 

offline i_x_ten from arsemuncher on 2005-10-10 07:41 [#01745698]
Points: 10031 Status: Regular | Followup to Ceri JC: #01745683



its not my fault if people misinterpret. why would i want to
decieve people anyway? anyone who is going to debate the
issue to any degree of worth should be well informed about
the topic anyway i.e not base their stance on one very
brief summary statement followed by personal opinion


 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2005-10-10 08:01 [#01745718]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker



I'm happy to endure a slight degree of
discomfort for a friend.


I bet you are Ceri. I bet your are.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha



 

offline Rostasky from United States on 2005-10-10 08:12 [#01745746]
Points: 1572 Status: Lurker



Don't worry, you won't be long without your liberty before
the bird flu kills you.


 

offline uzim on 2005-10-10 08:58 [#01745779]
Points: 17716 Status: Lurker | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01745672



i know that... but you never know what some governments will
invent... there are some completely absurd laws.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2005-10-10 09:35 [#01745799]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to bill_hicks: #01745718 | Show recordbag



I was waiting for some bill_hicks comedy gold in your
responses in this thread and you finally delivered the
goods. Genuine "lol" at that. :D

Drunken Mastah: I agree re: your point about democracy, but
I feel your "world democracy" analogy you use is flawed.
Individual countries may be run in accordance (to some
degree) to democracy, but by and large, international
affairs are a case of "might is right". I'm sure every other
country in the world could vote that America had to donate
money to them, it wouldn't make them do it though.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2005-10-10 09:38 [#01745806]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #01745799 | Show recordbag



exactly - it wouldn't make them do it, nor does it seem
right for the rest of the world to try to make them do it.
my point was that majority shouldn't impose themselves and
their opinions on minority, nor should minority impose
themselves on majority.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2005-10-10 09:47 [#01745816]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Drunken Mastah: #01745806 | Show recordbag



I tend to agree with your viewpoint that people should, by
and large, leave other people alone, unless they're being
pleasent to them.


 

offline Drunken Mastah from OPPERKLASSESVIN!!! (Norway) on 2005-10-10 09:54 [#01745832]
Points: 35867 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #01745816 | Show recordbag



word!


 


Messageboard index