| Author |
The Smokers Thread |
MWEB
Joined: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: somewhere nicer than you
PM |
So Batesie, it was HIS fault he was attacked and was killed, I find Smokers to be an aggressive and intolerent bunch who never take kindly to being told what to do, and have zero respect for the rights/views of non-smokers just so long as they can abate their addiction!!
|
|
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
On 2007-07-25 13:19:40, mweb6161 wrote:
So Batesie, it was HIS fault he was attacked and was killed, I find Smokers to be an aggressive and intolerent bunch who never take kindly to being told what to do, and have zero respect for the rights/views of non-smokers just so long as they can abate their addiction!!
no i never said it was his fault what a rediculous this to say! and now you are insulting 25% of the population by calling them aggressive and intolerant.
if you were to change the word smokers for a faith or religion, you would most likely be cautioned or banned by a mod, so i would like you to apologise. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@mweb
Now steady on their old boy, I don't think that one can tarnish all smokers with the one brush. I could say that non-smokers are an intolerant bunch who do not respect the rights of smokers and so on, but that wouldn't be the truth. There are rude people who smoke and rude people who do not smoke.
For instance, you will find that most smokers would probably be perfectly happy with compromising on the smoking ban. Give smokers dedicated clubs and rooms to smoke in and there would probably be a great deal less friction over this ban. People are not going to stop smoking simply because the government bans it in pubs, etc, they can, and do, just go out into the street, which spreads the smoke further. It would be a far more sensible idea to allow smoking in dedicated establishments where the only people who go there would be smokers.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-07-26 11:02 ] |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
i was at an outdoor train station last night and it was empty, when i say empty i was the only one on that platform, i took a walk down to the far end of the platform and enjoyed a ciggarette.
apparantly i was breaking the law. of the couple of people walking down the platform on the other side, no one battered an eyelid.
morally i feel what i did wasnt wrong, making sure that what i was about to do had absolutely no impact on anyone else. yet legally i was wrong...
feel free to pass on your thoughts 
[addsig] |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
I guess the problem with setting things in law is that you can't say "you can't do this or that except in this situation, or that situation or the other situation" as it would make it far too complicated for the average person to understand and therefore to comply with
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
it would be simpler to say "outdoors, not indoors" instead of "enclosed public places?" |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
agreed to some extent, but I've been in enclosed places outdoors where alot are smoking and still been affected by the smoke
the smokers who stand outside our building are terrible actually. its ni the open air but they stand so close to the door that you cannot help but get their smoke as you enter and exit
probably as I've never smoked I feel it more and its quite a nasty smell too
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
thats fine, the law states you must be at least 1.5meters from any door to a public building.
i havent got a problem with thing like this, its as scotsboy said, we want to have designated smoking rooms where people can make the "choice"(key word here) to smoke indoors.
what about bus stops then? |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
I also agree it seems reasonable to have dedicated smoking rooms, I see that alot in airports around the world, but as soon as the door opens the smoke wafts out
I guess what it needs is a air lock system, you know, you go through on door that closes behind you, then the air can be freshened and then you go out through the second door.
sounds a bit extreme though 
btw, my personal feeling about smoking is that I don't mind it at all, as long as me or my kids are not affected by the smoke... so puff away
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
exactly, i have always been one to avoid smoking near children, after all there lungs are still developing.
even out side at a bus stop where there were children, i would stand at least 4/5 meters away. but at the end of the day the black cabs an lorries probably churn out 100 times for toxic fumes than i do!
[addsig] |
MWEB
Joined: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: somewhere nicer than you
PM |
On 2007-07-26 10:19:15, scotsboyuk wrote:
@mweb
Now steady on their old boy, I don't think that one can tarnish all smokers with the one brush. I could say that non-smokers are an intolerant bunch who do not respect the rights of smokers and so on, but that wouldn't be the truth. There are rude people who smoke and rude people who do not smoke.
For instance, you will find that most smokers would probably be perfectly happy with compromising on the smoking ban. Give smokers dedicated clubs and rooms to smoke in and there would probably be a great deal less friction over this ban. People are not going to stop smoking simply because the government bans it in pubs, etc, they can, and do, just go out into the street, which spreads the smoke further. It would be a far more sensible idea to allow smoking in dedicated establishments where the only people who go there would be smokers.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-07-26 11:02 ]
The clubs YOU frequent are somewhat more civilised than the fleapits in my town scots, If i dared to request (prior to the ban) some person to refrain from smoking, the best i could hope for would be a mouthfull of abuse, at worst, a glass shoved in my face.
The crux of the matter is, that your STILL allowed to smoke in your own space, therefore affecting no-one other than yourself, which is entirely how it ought to be IMO.
|
Cycovision
Joined: Nov 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM, WWW
|
@mweb
You're missing the point!
The only thing that considerate smokers object to is the fact that effective and properly enforced indoor smoking areas in public places are not allowed at all. If a certain establishment cannot or will not provide such a facility then, fine! smokers will have to go outside.
By suggesting that smokers are catered for because they can smoke in their own space, you're implying (albeit not intentionally) that smokers should never go out in public!
Now that's bordering on extremism, isn't it?
|
MWEB
Joined: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: somewhere nicer than you
PM |
No, im quite happy and content for smokers to go wherever they choose, provided they leave the fags at home or in the car :0
|
Cycovision
Joined: Nov 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM, WWW
|
Why can't they take them into a separate room where the smoke cannot possibly harm or bother you at all?
|
MWEB
Joined: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: somewhere nicer than you
PM |
Not sure about the "seperate smokers room" concept, unless it's hermetically sealed, and staffed entirely by smokers 
Dont feel singled out you smokers, i take equal exception to people who wander round public places with cans of cheap lager in their mitts.
|
|
|
Posted: 2007-07-25 13:19
