NEWS: Scottish Parliament to Smokers: Fuck Off

The difference is that humans are all non smokers by default, and some have made the CHOICE to start smoking. They now must face some regulations as to where they are able to smoke.

when is the pendulum going to start swinging back to dionesian glory? I don't smoke but rarely, but I support smokers. What I see here is a lot of people on both sides saying "Why should I be put out? YOU'RE the ones with a problem." Well, y'know what? Get over yourselves. There's public places and there's public places. One type of public place is in fact private establishments. Smokefree bars do well. So do bars that allow smoking inside. Here in CA, there isn't a choice anymore. That sucks. While I personally don't mind stepping outside for a minute if I get a bee in my bonnet and want a smoke, There's really no reason anyone should have to if the establishments owner(s) are OK with smoking inside. Let the establishments choose what they want to do. If you don't like how a place does it, go somewhere else.

I've seen smokers get the shit hose turned on them by non smokers for standing outside while they fed their jones. What the fuck is that? Why can't people let smokers do their thing unmolested? If you smell smoke outside, what's it to you to walk 5 feet in the other direction so you don't smell it? It's outside for goodness' sake. I can't understand why so many of us can't accept smoking as something that people do, and always will do. There are probably too many alcoholics in the world, but nobody's bitching about the practice of happy hour... Let people do what people do, and shut the fuck up.

i like this thread. its amusing that i've seen the war in iraq debated on this site with less personal rancor and mean-spiritedness than this issue.

a few questions and observations:

first of all non-smokers who think that people who worry that this will lead to more dramatic measures are being, well, dramatic, need only refer to some of the statements of this board to realize that there is a group- however small- who have no problem with my choice to smoke being taken entirely out of my hands, in any situation.

secondly, i understand the public health argument, but in a case like this where there is not a serious and immediate danger from smoking(ie walk in the bar and die on the spot if you inhale smoke), one would think the cries of alarm would be a bit over the top. the reason government shouldn't start making laws like this is because it might never stop. in a free market economy you have market forces, if market forces exert enough pressure for a smoke free drinking enviroment a crafty businessperson will create one(take this a cue, if you think the market exists in your town, go look into small business loans).

which seques quite nicely into my third obeservation. since nonsmoking bars are not putting all the bars that allow smoking out of business all across this country(and the UK) it makes one wonder how great a demand for them is. the question is how strong are your convictions, you don't want to be in a smoke filled bar, then find and patronize the smokeless one(s). because i have a hard time believing that say in the city of philadelphia(ancedotal, i know, and not the place we're talking about, but run with it) there's such a ground swell of support for a smoking ban when i know there are non-smoking bars and yet the bars i frequent that let me smoke aren't raising thier prices through the roof to make up for a shortfall of business. i imagine if the government feels the need to impose regulations its because the market is not reacting. which would lead one to believe that if the market's not reacting the groundswell of support for this idea... isn't really there. most nonsmokers- i suspect- accept smoking in bars, but have no reason to fight against ordances banning it. and smoking is not quite a popular cause de jour these days. but the fact is, if the people who are anti-smoking(not ambivlant nonsmokers) really made up some sort of vast majority, you wouldn't have much trouble finding a nonsmoking bar on any city block. and i would have a serious problem because to smoke in a bar i'd have to pay eight dollars a draft, like at the airport. so fuck off.

Women don't have to work for employers who don't give them equal pay, so why is there equal pay legislation? Non-smokers don't have to work in a smokey environment, so why should we try to protect those workers?

Also: You keep using the word "choice" which is unfortunate when we're talking about an addiction.

This addiction kills 1600 people each week in England.

Opinion polls show that many people in Scotland want tighter controls on smoking, notice that was said by the chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. The Irash ban was successful, helping 7000 people to stop smoking within 6 months of the ban.

Smokers can still go to pubs and clubs. They just can't smoke inside them. I can't see how not allowing people to harm others is a bad thing.

Except that while we're seeing tighter controls on smoking we're seeing a relaxation on the controls on cannabis, and a possible relaxation on licensing hours for pubs.

Except many people in Scotland *wanted* to see tighter controls. The number of people going to pubs in Ireland has increased because peopel who didn't go out before go out more often now, and smokers haven't stopped going out.

The rights of non-smokers trump the rights of smokers because a:many smokers don't want to smoke; look at the number of people who try to give up but don't and b:because it's an anti-social addiction that harms other people.

"If you don't want to inhale smoke, don't come here." is better because:
1)more people want smoking restrictions than don't want smoking restrictions
2)smoking is not a choice for many people. Smoking is addictive.
3)smoking harms other people. Not smoking harms noone; in fact not-smoking makes other people healthier. Everyone does win.

and this pleases me how? beyond the fact you're responding to a generalized comment with a very specific instance in one area i've got this to say.

you know how you feel all offended and out of joint but my cigarette smoking?

that's how i feel about other people's pot smoking. yet somhow i don't see why it should outlawed.

You'd allow anyone to smoke pot where ever and whenever they liked? Or you'd outlaw it for some people at some times?

[Edited on Nov 15, 2004 by demetrius_z]

I'm going to strap a boom box to my back and have it play "Mmm-bop" at an obnoxiously loud volume in bars. While prolonged exposure to the high volume would damage your ears, the only thing a short exposure will do is annoy the holy crap out of you, so I should be allowed to do it whenever I want. Mking social experiences miserable for other people! It's fun! It's my right!

Or I could listen to it in my car. Which do you prefer?

where ever. amazingly, i wouldn't hae to be there.

Bus drivers, while driving? Pilots, while pilotting?

hell, i'm sure i could find a bar where they wouldn't let you do that. similar to how you could find a bar that wouldn't let be smoke.

you know, i see where you're going with this and its a bit foolish.

a pilot should NOT be allowed to smoke pot while piloting for the same reason a pilot shouldn't take a few doses of nyquil or tylenol PM and perfomr their job. for the same reason a forklift operator wouldn't be able to do their job while on a completely legal prescription painkiller.

which has nothing whatsoever to do with what a person does in their leisure hours, nor is smoking in any way comproable. keep in mind- not in any way. if i smoke in a bar and you are exposed there is a chance you could get cancer at some point, yes. if a pilot gets loaded on tequila and shrooms and flies there's a chance he could go into a mountain, and then EVERYONE dies, INSTANTLY.

not comporable.

you are aware that drunk driving laws don't prevent you from drinking and then driving they prevent from driving while drunk, yes?

common sense rules the day, yet again.

Except some of those people aren't in the leisure hours, they're working there.

Smoking causes at least 25 different illnesses. When have I mentioned cancer in this thread? Not only that; it smells and is unpleasant.

Okay; you don't like the pilot thing. How about children? You'd not let children take drugs, or would you?

So, you think it's okay to have a drink and then drive, so long as you're not drunk, right? That's what you're saying? If you know your limits there's no problem with drinking and driving?

First of all, your pubs close at 11 and have more restrictions on them than Germany after 1945. If you're a model for the rest of the world, I quit.

Secondly, I think it's a mistake to view this as smokers' rights versus non-smokers' rights. It's about the rights of the bar owner. A bar is a private business. I don't see it as any different from having a party in your own home. You want to government coming to your (or anyone's) house and telling them they can't invite smokers in? If I have a party, I don't want the government sending the pubpatrol in to tell me what to do. There's a good argument for making airlines smoke free. But pubs are no more a public trust than a kegger at my house.

1) Again, I don't care if 70% of people vote to have the color of my wallpaper changed because it annoys you. You can all go sit and spin. That Brits treat their pubs as an extention of the NHS doesn't mean it ought to be that way.

Secondly, an important point about the anti-smoking campaign in America: you're not winning because the public agrees with you. You're winning because the insurance industry and a powerful legion of lawyers is ready to screw anyone who doesn't voluntarily ban smoking in their place of business.

Soon there will be no bars or clubs to smoke in. And it will be for exactly the same reason that playgrounds across the US are now taking down their swings. Because a screwed up system of tort translates "risky" to "against the law." This is the real power behind the nanny state.

2) Ridiculous. Quitting may be difficult. But not a choice? About as many Americans have quit smoking as currently smoke, and more than 90 percent of them gave up the habit without formal treatment.

The same people who claim that smokers are slaves to nicotine are the ones that advocate taxing smoking to make it more less convenient and more expensive. They claim raising prices reduces smoking. But this means smokers are able to calculate the additional cost imposed by a tax hike, weigh it against the benefits of smoking, and modify their consumption--not the kind of behavior you expect from someone who's will has been stolen by Big Scary Tobacco.

3) Unless you're in a smoke filled room all day, it doesn't harm you, there's no study to show it harms you. You don't like it. It annoys you. That's all.

You know this is a discussion about SCOTLAND, right? Did you miss the part where I said that licencing laws are being relaxed?

[snipped rest unread.]

Great, just what we need - less people dying.

The government have indeed stated their intent to relax licencing laws. How this squares with their intent to cut drinking (defined as more than 3 units per day for women) and to ban cheap drink promotions in pubs...well, I don't know. Frankly I don't think the Scottish parliament know what they're up to.

Looks like England and Wales are going to stop short of an all out ban.
click here