Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
David on 16/7/2006 at 07:41
This is the most laffo thread there's been in a long time. SE, tMB and STD seemingly all getting really het up? Hilarious!
The sooner you boys remember that you're all too fucking stubborn to listen to each other without the 'I AM SO SMART, I AM SO SMART, S. M. R. T, I MEAN S. M. A. R. T.' the sooner you'll stop going round in circles.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 07:49
Oh, I'm not het up. I just forget what a space cadet tBM is now and then (plus I try not to be too rude as he's my senior by a number of years). For the record StD and I on the same team btw David pls notice see?
Malygris on 16/7/2006 at 08:01
Seven pages of this bullshit makes me thank god that, first, we can still smoke to our heart's content at our local bars, and second, that none of you idiots are there to fuck it up for us.
SubJeff on 16/7/2006 at 08:23
Quote Posted by Malygris
we can still smoke to our heart's discontent
Fixed.
Also - I haven't heard such backwards attitudes to smoking in a long, long time. No one is saying you shouldn't smoke if you choose to. Do what you want at home. No one cares.
Chimpy Chompy on 16/7/2006 at 13:46
Hmm my eyes kinda glaze over when tBm goes off on his PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY stuff but I was thinking of it this way:
Suppose you have some factory or industrial plant where toxic chemicals and fumes are involved. I would expect the government to pass some kind of regulations regarding emissions of those fumes, ie tell the company running the factory to take steps to reduce the emissions. So as to protect its workers. It might mean the company has to spend money, and Pan probably grinds his teeth at the thought but, well, tough.
So why is a bar different? Are toxic fumes suddenly permitted here?
Since I've never done bar work, tho, I'm not too sure on the details of the situation. What proportion of bars are non smoking. How easy is it to find another job in that area?
So now I'll go turn about face and look in another angle. So that, erm, I can end up in an argument with everyone, huzzah!
I do think there's been a fair point about people choosing not to work. I mean, the fact that there's work that needs doing is the oft-repeated justfication for large-scale immigration. So... can't those bar staff go do some of that if they don't like breathing fumes? I mean, looking in my local paper there's almost always "warehouse operatives required" and stuff like that, crummy jobs yeah but if workers are doign bar jobs in the first place it might suggest they're not qualified for anything better anyway.
jprobs on 16/7/2006 at 13:52
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You two are clearly out of touch with reality. This isn't about running the lives of others, it's about the health of the nation.
Do either of you smoke?
No, I do not smoke. Nor does anyone in my family.
If this was really about the health of the nation, the government would outlaw tabacco. After all, it has killed more people than Phen-fen. Phen-fen is banned but tabbaco remains.
This has nothing to do with the health of the nation. This is appeasing the loudest voice.
If I own a pub, shouln't I have the right to allow MY patrons to smoke a legal product in MY pub. And shouldn't you as a person who does not like smoke have the right not to frequent my establishment?
SD on 16/7/2006 at 14:40
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Suppose you have some factory or industrial plant where toxic chemicals and fumes are involved. I would expect the government to pass some kind of regulations regarding emissions of those fumes, ie tell the company running the factory to take steps to reduce the emissions. So as to protect its workers.
Rubbish Chimpy! Those workers could just go and work in another chemical plant where there aren't any toxic fumes!
I mean, they have the choice to work there, nobody's forcing them at gunpoint to work in a chemical factory which doesn't protect its workers from toxic fumes, it's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
:joke:
Shug on 16/7/2006 at 15:06
Holy SHIT. All this sideways arguing is utterly pointless. Anybody coming out with "well you're drinking, why should you have a choice about whether somebody else's vice is putting toxic fumes into your lungs HURRR" is amazingly stupid.
Just because smoking has been allowed for so long that smokers/smoking supporters feel it is acceptable to breath smoke on other people and afflict them with YOUR habit doesn't mean it's right.
The rest is immaterial.
Ghostly Apparition on 16/7/2006 at 22:21
Quote Posted by Malygris
Seven pages of this bullshit makes me thank god that, first, we can still smoke to our heart's content at our local bars, and second, that none of you idiots are there to fuck it up for us.
Not true here, Smoking is banned in all public buildings, restaurants, BARS, parks , and beaches, in California.
I think theres some who would like to burn smokers at the stake, except it would create smoke.
Jason Moyer on 17/7/2006 at 01:20
Quote Posted by Shug
Holy SHIT. All this sideways arguing is utterly pointless. Anybody coming out with "well you're drinking, why should you have a choice about whether somebody else's vice is putting toxic fumes into your lungs HURRR" is amazingly stupid.
I'm not sure that I understand why someone who cares about their health would go into a bar. At least someone who cares to the extent of "OMG SMOKE GET IT AWAY FROM ME".
If anyone honestly believes that a typical night of alcohol consumption is somehow better for their mental and physical health than 2-4 hours of breathing second hand smoke...eh.
