Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 thread calling for Gringo !!! I don't know - you're out of range for a few days and the anti-smoking fascists are back on the march, Just walked through the centre of town, covered in litter, all sorts of shite all over the place. But the govt are going to fine smokers for nubbing out fags whilst removing all the litter bins, Let's ignore the real problem and use it as a stick to whack a minority. What's the point of arguing - it started out as a health debate and when that one was lost it turned into how nice my sweater smells. You're all turning into wimmin. We have a law about not using mobiles whilst driving and can't be arsed to enforce it - but seen smoking with a fag and they'll be after you. If you can't drive a car and light a fag at the same time then you don't have the cognitive or spacial abilities to be able to drive. Fags don't distract, they don't ask you to make decisions, or talk to you (well apart from Trim's fags) - mobile phones do. Which is the real danger and which minority will be bashed by the stick? Why the hysteria? Who's making money out of this? Supermarkets, drug companies, wacko hypnotherapists. The health debate is lost - the odd study that has tried to show a causal link has been more than adequately rebutted but then is requoted to suit the stick bearers argument and extrapolated to just silly levels. Number of smokers consistently falling for 40 years. Incidence of lung cancer staying roughly the same. So the stick bearers make up something called smoke related diseases - things which may be caused by smoking but are also likely to be caused by other environmental factors. But bugger the research and working out whats going wrong, we've got a stick - let's hit someone. Spain have taken an intelligent approach to the "nice smelling jumper" wussies and constrained smoking to within certain establishments and enforced signposting of smoking and non-smoking areas. Result - smokers are happy, non-smokers are happy, anti-smoking fascists are marginalised. If in any argument, you are in agreement with patricia "I suck big businesses cock" hewitt, then there is a very large likelihood you are on the wrong side of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 It'll not be long till they start to limit booze, too. Give it 10 years and drinking will be as stigmatised as smoking is now. The amount of crime caused by alcohol, the broken families, violence, illness, mayhem in Casualty departments, drink drivers ruining lives,.... Something must be done about it! Nanny knows best. Far, far too true! I resisted commenting last time this thread appeared, i think Gringo was saying much the same as i will, but i can't remember (and can't be arsed checking) so if it wasn't, apologies. It's not about whether you do or don't like smoking, it's about the subtle yet perpetual erosion of civil liberties that a blanket ban subjects the populace to. (and yes, drinking... or something else YOU participate in will be next) Sorry fergie69, but i didn't vote as in the context of the above statement i find both choices selfish. There, i stuck my fag-end in! Edit due to mis-identifying the OP Indeed, I would say that a similar poll about alcohol related illnesses could have the options: 1) Do you wish to ban alcohol; or 2) Do you wish to lower the age limit to 12 and give free alcopops to skulekids. Presenting a poll without real alternatives is not a way to start a debate. I too did not vote with such silly propositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Its a shame that people who smoke are too **** stupid to stop. Its a shame that you bastards inflict your diry cancerous habit on us none smokers.What an ignorant clearing in the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 If in any argument, you are in agreement with patricia "I suck big businesses cock" hewitt, then there is a very large likelihood you are on the wrong side of the debate. well of all the big business's, Tobacco companies rank with the highest of them all .... look at teh settlements they did in the states and in some cases barely damaged profitability which 'big buisness' does this law suit Pub companies and not exaclty 100% behind it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 what will happen is they will probably turn some pubs into members only pubs, much like liberal or conservative etc etc clubs, in which its up to the owners. You'll get smoking pubs for smokers i imagine. but normal pubs,clubs and nightclubs will obviously be smoke free. and i think the stats show alot, 80% of this forum choose non-smoking as a good thing, which makes you wonder how ignorant the 20% of smokers are to make 100% of people smell! Maybe because, as per your own comments, they don't understand the law. Private members clubs are not exempt. The only places that are exempt are "Palaces" - and associated establishments - so brenda can have the odd drag, and the MPs are OK cos they work in westminster palace, but everywhere else that is enclosed is included in the ban. Not that the police will be raiding the grandee's lounges where they are all sat in their big leather chairs, shovelling down brandy and puffing on their cigars. One rule for the powerful, one rule for the workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 If in any argument, you are in agreement with patricia "I suck big businesses cock" hewitt, then there is a very large likelihood you are on the wrong side of the debate. well of all the big business's, Tobacco companies rank with the highest of them all .... look at teh settlements they did in the states and in some cases barely damaged profitability which 'big buisness' does this law suit Read the post - I think it talks about the drug companies - one UK drug company has a larger cash flow than the breweries combined. And as you say - if the smoking ban isn't affecting tobacco companies (as you state) then why would they be opposed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 All the nonsense about pubs having to close because of loss of custom has been shown to be untrue.Have a word with all the people who used to own little country pubs in galway and mayo that are selling up and turning them into flats. Your commentary is oppsed by the studies in places where the full impact of the ban has been felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundeevilla Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 At last the cavalry has arrived in this thread. Dr Stupid, Gringo, I salute your indefatigability. And hycus-flange - you called me a nazi in the "Maddie" McCann thread, but you're alright by me. Give adults choice in a democratic society. Pubs are not health clubs. Smoking and non-smoking premises a la Spain is the right way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Once the ban comes into effect, smokers are quite welcome to stay away if they wish to. they can drink at home if they wish to, it's all about personal choice. What i do/did object to was smokers polluting my immediate atmosphere with my only option of getting way from said atmosphere to leave the establishment.Yes it's all about personal choice. If I want to allow smoking in my pub, I should be allowed to do so. There could and should be regulation that enforces adequate signage that advises people quite clearly they are entering a smoker's environment and then they have the personal choice to go next door and complement each other on how nice their jumper smells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 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.Indeed when liberties are so easily given up, people soon forget they had them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The fatal flaw in your argument - who decides which premises are smoking and which aren't?Well the spanish seemed to reach a reasonable compromise without too much hard thinking. And if such backward countries can manage it surely the mother of all democracies could have worked it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Then again smoking can cause diseases that'll make incapable of working and in need of extensive medical care constantly. Basing the argument on the UK, tobacco brings in 5 times as much tax as the NHS spends on "smoking related" diseases (many of which would not actually have been caused by smoke, but "might have been", possibly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dundeevilla Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The fatal flaw in your argument - who decides which premises are smoking and which aren't? Is it really too much to ask of our highly paid political masters to come up with a workable middle-way solution which incorporates an adult choice for both smokers and non-smokers? Are we really happy with them having no talent or imagination that they just tax and/or ban things as a solution to our perceived problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The great thing about the smoking ban: Its happening. There is **** all you can do to stop it, so whining about it is academic. That's a scary philosophy. So theoretically, protesting over anything at all is whining and shouldn't be done as it's all academic and gonna happen anyway ? Well, when it suits me and my interests, yes. Two other arguments i like: 1] Smokers should have the freedom to smoke. Would you want the freedom to piss in the swimming pool too? Polluting the space around you doesnt seem to be a problem for you. 2] Should we ban cars and lorries then, as they pump out more shit than a cigarette? Well, other than the blindingly obvious fact that it could never happen as the country would collapse economically, it also must be pointed out that cars are generally running outside on the open road, where smokers are free to smoke. 1) Of course if a group of people enjoy pissing in pools and swimming in it then they should be allowed to run such pools and control access to those who are agree with this particular fetish. 2) Economical necessity. Just like mobile phones, an economical nec essity which we didn't have 20 years ago. The world changes and we adapt to suit. People will adapt to suit this fascist law and the supermarkets will be coinging it in and lung cancer incidence will carry on at the same rate until priorities change and someone starts asking the right questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 BOF is the oricle, his post hits the nail on the head, we'd all like something different, but forcing it onto others is the wrong way to go about it Like a smoker forces smoke onto a non smoker you mean!?A situation that arose because of years feeble govt should not be rectified through authoritarian laws. Don't blame the smokers - blame the market, blame the MPs, blame your landlord. These people are only exercising their rights. As per tonyh's comments - I previously would find a seat in a restaurant away from non-smokers, would not smoke if there were pregnant ladies or children in my presence. Then witch hewitt lied and backtracked on the day the legislation was passed. Said one thing for months and weeks and even on the morning of the debate, but then spoke and voted in the opposite direction. Lying bitch hypocrite. Burn her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 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.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. Basing the argument on the UK, tobacco brings in 5 times as much tax as the NHS spends on "smoking related" diseases Okay, maybe I'm wrong on that one, I don't know. But still, what are you saying? People should smoke more? Come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 After all we live in a democracy, buying and smoking cigarettes is not illegal, and as adults we have a choice to smoke or not.I would be more in favour of a complete ban on tobacco products than this hypcoritical law where the non-smokers benefit from the revenues accrued from smoking but treat smokers like the shit on their shoe - and all in the name of liberty - pah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 11, 2007 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2007 I'm sure it was true a few years ago that the French population had a higher percentage of smokers and lower incidence of lung cancer and heart disease than the British Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Don't think anyone has mentioned a positive for smokers, the social side of things. When I was travelling it was a great way to meet new people, in the smoking area outside. Most smokers I know loved that side of things. Not so pleasant in the cold in this country, but it was certainly an up-side there.Always be suspicious of surreptitious arguments that pretend to be favouring the group being attacked by the legislation. It's like the USA arguing that subsidising their grain industries helps the poor because we can dump our surpluses on them destroying their local farmers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Smokers will never be really bothered about other people. The vast majority smoke in front of their kids so it stands to reason that they dont give a shit about anyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts