Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

What if the only job you can get to support your family is at a smoke-filled resturant or bar, and you have asthma?
Click to expand...

Dude come on, that is bullshit. There are hundreds of jobs available to everyone in America in their region. People who spout this "Well I can't get a job" bullshit are exactly that.

You can mention to your boss your problems and get a job behind the bar. You could just tell motherfuckers to put their cigs out or you won't serve them. Asthma is treatable, and if your walking around it is not that bad for you. I would suggest not trying to argue asthma with me either.

Again. I've said this before.

Private companies already take into account smoking. This is another proof that government cannot do anything right that the private sector can do. From highways to space programs.

But. Whatever. Smoking should be considered too by this national narcotic we all know as public healthcare services.
 
CreativeRandom said:
Dude come on, that is bullshit. There are hundreds of jobs available to everyone in America in their region. People who spout this "Well I can't get a job" bullshit are exactly that.
Click to expand...
You make it sound like people can just flit between jobs as they fancy. The job market is highly competitive. Fact is, many people find it hard enough to get work at all, and not everyone has the freedom to pick and choose the most appealing jobs.
 
I don't think the fact that a certain health condition prevents a person from doing a certain job should mean that this certain job (waiting where smoking is allowed) shouldn't exist.
Obese people can't hold a physically demanding job but that doesn't mean that type of job shouldn't exist.

This sounds wrong to me: say a company is created and offers a new job, but because this job can't be fulfilled by every person regardless of their health it shouldn't be allowed.
 
You make it sound like people can just flit between jobs as they fancy
Click to expand...

They can. Anyone can get a job at Wal-Mart, even illegals.

The job market is highly competitive
Click to expand...

It is. This is why you see so many jobs available to anyone. Such as Wal-Mart.

not everyone has the freedom to pick and choose the most appealing jobs.
Click to expand...

Who in the world has this freedom? Even Harvard graduates I know do not have this freedom.
 
snowshovel said:
No, you're taking a rather cock-eyed view of the situation. Looking at the bigger picture, it's clear that at any given moment a smoker is more likely than an equivalent non-smoker to need treatment. (Equivalent meaning we assume they are exactly the same in all respects other than smoking). So over a given period of time, a disproportionate amount of smokers will need treatment compared to non-smokers. Therefore they end up costing the healthcare service more.
Click to expand...

Smokers on average live about 6 (In the case of men) or 8.5 (In the case of women) years less than other people. Everyone who dies from natural causes will need treatment from some sort of disease, and this will cost money. One less smoker means one less person the system will have to support for an additional 6 or 8.5 years.

MDMARI said:
What if they didn't smoke; well they are and they thats the point. And you are polluting the minimal air us non-smokers are getting in these bars, clubs, etc.......
Click to expand...

I was referring to the health costs of smoking that taxpayers pay for compared to the costs of non-smokers. I think you missed the point. And by the way, I don't smoke.
 
Convenience and "just because it is cheaper" should not be reasons to rule out service or quality. Stop this stupid argument.
 
Johnny1 said:
^ qwe, it's not a bias if it's true, ha ha ha. ;)

We went smoke-free in bars in Los Angeles several years ago and it's sooo much nicer to go out at night. The smokers can still smoke, just outside, and we don't come home to bury our faces in our beautiful women's (or men's) necks only to smell a hair full of stink anymore. The bars still make plenty of money, and I haven't heard someone complain about this law here in years.
Click to expand...


In Cali it doesn't snow---or hail
 
CreativeRandom said:
Convenience and "just because it is cheaper" should not be reasons to rule out service or quality. Stop this stupid argument.
Click to expand...
This works both ways. The way you see it, it is convenient for non-smokers if smokers are denied "service or quality" (i.e. the right to smoke). But equally, I would say it is convenient for smokers if they can smoke, hence denying "service or quality" (i.e. a smoke-free environment) to the non-smokers. If inconvenience isn't a problem, why not go outside to smoke?

It's very easy to belittle the other side's genuine concerns by reducing them to matters of "convenience".

Also, please remember we're not arguing about a total ban here, the proposed changes to the law will still allow smoking in some establishments. It should just take us closer to having the right proportion of smoking/non-smoking pubs, and therefore a fairer choice for everyone.

I agree that we shouldn't really be arguing about the financial costs (having done some research it seems economists can't really agree on the effects of banning smoking), but what about the costs in terms of human lives?
 
Last edited:
I wont be offended by your smokeing if you dont mind me standing next to you farting and buring pieces of rubber.

Wait I wouldnt be so damn RUDE to insult your senses like that. Why are you so damn rude around me?
 
^if you dont like it move somewhere else

if you fart and burn pieces of rubber by me, i'll probably laugh. if i get annoyed, i'll just move away. i won't try to get farting and burning things BANNED LEGALLY

i dont smoke btw
 
What if every single club and pub was chock full of people farting and burning pieces of rubber? Where will you move then?
 
The way you see it, it is convenient for non-smokers if smokers are denied "service or quality" (i.e. the right to smoke). But equally, I would say it is convenient for smokers if they can smoke, hence denying "service or quality" (i.e. a smoke-free environment) to the non-smokers. If inconvenience isn't a problem, why not go outside to smoke
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with convenience. You misread what I was talking about when I mentioned convenience. Please read my posts before making completely out of the air "responses". My argument is that businesses should have the freedom to choose how they run their business.

What if every single club and pub was chock full of people farting and burning pieces of rubber? Where will you move then
Click to expand...

Then the business will go under. And you would move to another club and pub, which would get greater business, thus discouraging the practice of clubs and pubs chock full of people farting and burning pieces of rubber.

Burning pieces of rubber is also a fire hazard, and it not allowed. Business owners aren't too keen on that either.
 
^ I'm sorry if I misread your previous post but you didn't really make it clear what you meant by "convenience". Please don't accuse me of not reading your posts and "making completely out of the air responses" - I have been following this whole thread. I've already countered your argument about business freedom and have yet to see a proper response.
 
When I mentioned convenience, I was referring to the whole smokers and health care argument going on. You took my mentioning of convenience and made it into an argument against me with your anti-freedom argument. You put words into my mouth, making it out that I said that businesses should have the convenience or something like that to do as they please.

I did not make any mention of such.
 
there is nothing beneficial to smoking at all. i can't wait until they ban it entirely.

at least a heroin junkie gets to chase a dragon. smokers don't get anything.
 
Last edited:
Just because something is beneficial (or not) shouldn't be an issue to government. Have you ever read "Anthem" or "1984" or "Animal Farm", or anything else by Rand or Orwell? You sound exactly like the antagonists of those books.

Heroin is not beneficial. Smoking marijuana is not beneficial. Alcohol is not beneficial. Reading books is not beneficial.

I think your attitude, as shown in your post, is probably the kind I consider the most disgusting. I'm sorry to be so blatantly offensive, but it is true.

Oh yea, free speech isn't beneficial.
 
posner said:
there is nothing beneficial to smoking at all. i can't wait until they ban it entirely.

at least a heroin junkie gets to chase a dragon. smokers don't get anything.
Click to expand...
first, what creative random said
second, tobacco has been used religiously (native americans) and socially and recreationally as a stimulant(it does give some people a buzz) and as a relaxant especially for those addicted to it
 
I was being flippant.

But to compare a regulation that bans smoking in public places to an Orwellian vision of totalitarianism is a bit much. Governments regulate our lives in about a hundred thousand different ways all the time.

You know, people are under this misconception that their rights are limitless. They are not. That is not to say that any of us want our liberties curtailed needlessly, but states (in the U.S.) and other countries are well within their police powers to restrict activities to promote the public health.

And to use my "beneficial" comment---well, what good does society gain from tobacco (currently)? None. You can say that religions and cultures use tobacco, but in none of them is it critical to rituals or anything (unlike the use of DMT and peyote in Native American rituals). And it helps people relax who are already addicted to it? C'mon, I hope you have something better for me than that.

For many sensitive subjects, the fear is that once you start the restrictions there is no end point. For example, pornography to one person is art to another, etc. etc. These types of restrictions (or attempts) reflect a moral health, which I can assume the vast majority of people, here anyway, do not agree with. But in a very real, very physical way tobacco is unsafe.

But as to tobacco's benefit to society (besides some historical importance)----there is none. And in a way, you are right. If it is merely not-beneficial maybe governments should not be regulating it. But smoking is harmful. And when you are undertaking to harm yourself I think governments should step in to make sure that you do not harm others.

If anything, yours is the reactionary viewpoint.
 
Governments regulate our lives in about a hundred thousand different ways all the time.
Click to expand...
sadly (i'm libertarian)
the fear is that once you start the restrictions there is no end point
Click to expand...
that is not my fear. my fear is of this particular law because it's a law against consensual activity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top