El Zen

Yes, of course, my comment about smokers embracing the ban is obviously me creating stories because of my horrbile anti-smoking bias :roll: About the people who risk losing their seat, forgive but I really can't make myself feel too sorry for them. First of all, asking someone if they'd kindly save your seat is hardly that much trouble. Second of all - tough luck, you choose to smoke, deal with it. As for the "what about the elderly?"-piece of cheapish rhetoric, I honestly feel that if they are capable of finding their way down to their local then I think they won't suffer tremedously if they have to walk five yards and stand outside for three minutes.

Indeed when liberties are so easily given up, people soon forget they had them Nah, but you see smokers embrace the ban as well. I don't think people are all too concerned about "liberties" such as being allowed to puff cigarette smoke in some strangers face - I think they are more concerned about a decent indoor climate and a compromise that suits all parts fairly well. Okay, maybe I'm wrong on that one, I don't know. But still, what are you saying? People should smoke more? Come on...

How on earth do you know that?

Quite a lot of places, then, if smoking in public rooms should still be allowed. It's not the people who are ill who should have to go wait outside or go somewhere else - it's the people who have chosen to slowly kill themselves off. No, you are not allergic to getting eaten by crocodiles, and no offense but OH MY GOD that is a poor analogy :roll: isnt getting eaten by a crocodile bad for you then? It certainly is, but I think you need to look up allergies on wikipedia if you think that analogy of yours is a good comparison to asthma and working in rooms full of cigarette smoke.

Quite a lot of places, then, if smoking in public rooms should still be allowed. It's not the people who are ill who should have to go wait outside or go somewhere else - it's the people who have chosen to slowly kill themselves off. No, you are not allergic to getting eaten by crocodiles, and no offense but OH MY GOD that is a poor analogy :roll:

Oh well, if THAT'S all.... :shock: It's not quite as dramatic as that, I can assure you. My father, and plenty of other people I know, have been doing snus for donkey's years and have only suffered temporary and very slight irritation to the gums.

No way. Might be sharing a few chemicals, but they are nothing alike. In terms of health risks, I would believe they are. Never tried sniffing snuff, but I would think the effect is somewhat similar to snus. Health risks i wouldnt know. TBH ive never heard of any special health risks with snus except jaw structure collapsing. Sniff does not have the same effect in any way. Atleast not the stuff ive tried. You may be right about the effects of snuff, Tarj. Never tried it myself, just thought that the idea was to let the nicotine to kick in. Health risks connected to snus is an interesting discussion with no definitive answers yet. It is widely accepted as far less damaging than cigarettes, though, and no increased risks of cancer have been proven so far. If it were up to me, smokers would be adviced by health authorities to switch to snus.

No way. Might be sharing a few chemicals, but they are nothing alike. In terms of health risks, I would believe they are. Never tried sniffing snuff, but I would think the effect is somewhat similar to snus.

snus

I think you're talking about the English snuff, which you do indeed sniff (as Risso said). Ironically, this product is legal in the EU, even it is virtually the same as the illegal snus :?

Snuff is not banned across Europe. I can get it at my local petrol station. Unless that's not real snuff, but as far as I'm aware it is :? I don't know about ROI specifically, Bri, but this stuff here is illegal in most EU countries. Which is insane, considering how it is FAR less damaging to your health than smoking and how it doesn't harm anyone around you either. EDIT: I just remembered, we may be talking about two different products too. The stuff I'm talking about is called snus up here, and I thought snuff was the most accurate translation.

Why? As your argument is purely based on the principle of freedom of choice, why should that freedom be restricted to "fun" places like the pub and bars? The problem with this argument, is that today there isn't a compromise. You smokers have all the power. I think saying "you can smoke, no problem, just step outside for three minutes so you don't bother the guy next to you" is a pretty fair compromise.

Yes you can, actually, just take the necessary precatuions and you'll most likely be fine. What sort of precautions do you suggest people take in smoky pubs? Remember, you have to stay customer-friendly so wearing a mask isn't really an alternative. But surely, people should have the right to smoke in the local shop as well if we're to follow your ideology of "freedom of choice"?

Asthma, allergies etc? If you suffer from asthma, you can not work in a room full of cigarette smoke. Effectively, you are excluded from any room full of smoke. I'll repeat gladly - people would be surprised. In Norway, most pubs and bars have experienced an increase in customers since the ban.

You would be surprised, I can tell you, and so would the landlords presumably.

But then you take away the non-smokers choice of working in places where smoking is allowed. Anywhere smoking is allowed indoors, a group of people is effectively excluded from that place - simple as that - therefore smokers will have to give up their right to excersise their bad habits and desire to kill themselves in public rooms. If there was a choice of smoking or non smoking places no-one would be 'excluded ' from anywhere. That's like saying you're 'excluded' from Chinese restaurants if you don't like the food. Yes you would. Anyone with asthma or other significant allergies would struggle to work in an establishment where smoking was allowed. And your anaology with not liking chinese food isn't a very good one, as noone's health would suffer from serving food they don't like the taste of. So do tell me - how many non-smoking pubs are there now, before the ban?

But then you take away the non-smokers choice of working in places where smoking is allowed. Anywhere smoking is allowed indoors, a group of people is effectively excluded from that place - simple as that - therefore smokers will have to give up their right to excersise their bad habits and desire to kill themselves in public rooms.

Well, if all smokers quit smoking and started doing snuff instead, the general health would increase dramatically so that isn't really a bad idea. It is absolutely insane that snuff is banned all across Europe, when cigarettes are not.

It's the concept of putting the smokers' liberties above the liberties of those who suffer from passive smoking I don't get. Noone will suffer physically if they aren't allowed to smoke inside a pub or restaurant, but many people (if not all of us) will suffer physically if a person decides to light up at the table next to you. Non-smokers, asthmatics and others should not be restricted from going to the pub or restaurant because of other people's bad habits.

But if a pub is full of cigarette smoke, the smokers have effectively taken away my freedom of choice to enter that place, again not to mention asthmatics and other allergies. Smokers on the other hand, don't choke up and have trouble breathing if the air inside the pub is smoke-free. And if they absolutely have to smoke, they have the option (or freedom of choice if you will, to go outside for three minutes.

So why do smokers deserve more freedom than me? Not to mention those who suffer from asthma and allergies?

A study was done on this in the Czech Republic on whether banning smoking would benefit the country/economy and they found that smoking killed people off at an age well before they ended up in hospital with 'old people' diseases. So smoking, apart from bringing in obscene amounts of taxes, actually 'culls' the population too. A double whammy. Otherwise it'd be pensions this, adult nappies that.. Then again smoking can cause diseases that'll make incapable of working and in need of extensive medical care constantly. These people won't be able to contribute to society, and cost a fortune to keep alive. This study may serve some useful points for the pro-smoking brigade, and maybe it is correct on some points, but I don't think it's worth paying too much attention to it. I think it is safe to say that banning smoking will not have a negative impact on tha national economy. I'll stop this now, as it's getting a bit too cynical discussing the economic benefits of people killing themselves off with tobacco and tar

No need to worry, I'd imagine. In Norway, we have higher taxes on cigarettes and have had a considerable drop in cigarette sales and consumption. I can't say we've noticed a dramatic impact on the economy, Tony, I really can't Plus, the health benefits would save the NHS quite a bit anyway.

Can anyone tell my why this "freedom of choice" for smokers is important?

Had it in Norway for a few years. Lots of complaints initially but now a considerable majority seem to accept the fact that a smoking ban is a good thing. I love it personally, as I'm very sensitive to cigarette smoke. I can't imagine how much people whjo suffer from asthma and other allergies must appreciate the ban. (The point about places having to close down is basically a myth, and I don't get those who're complaining about BO either as I sure haven't noticed any significant difference there).