Smokers = Whiney Bitches

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-11 04:50am

Legal move by smoke ban opponents

Representatives of Scotland's pubs and clubs are taking legal advice to see if they can challenge plans to ban smoking in public places.
They have expressed outrage at the Scottish Executive plans to stop people lighting up in enclosed spaces.

The Scottish Licensed Trade Association warned the move would "decimate" the industry and lead to 30,000 job losses.

Chief executive Paul Waterson said: "We will continue the fight. We are consulting with legal advisers."

He promised: "We will pursue every avenue to ensure that the interests of the licensed trade are upheld."

A campaign group called Against an Outright Ban has been set up to fight the proposals, which were unveiled on Wednesday.

First Minister Jack McConnell said that a "comprehensive ban" on smoking in public places would be introduced by the spring of 2006.

Licensees or employers who fail to enforce the law will face fines of up to £2,500, while individuals who persistently flout the ban could be hit by penalties of up to £1,000.

However, Mr Waterson said ministers had failed to justify the ban with hard facts.

He said one possible legal challenge would look at the viability of ventilating pubs rather than introducing an all-out ban.

"We believe ventilation does work and we can accommodate smokers and non smokers with a relatively inexpensive ventilation system," he said.

Mr Waterson described the consultation process as "a complete sham" and said most Scots did not support a ban.

Mr Waterson said publicans would be left to enforce the ban because police are also against the proposals.

He added that two thirds of regular pub drinkers were smokers and claimed that the proposals could force up to a quarter of Scotland's bars to close.

Gordon Millar, chief executive of the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, said it would be "looking closely" at the detail of the legislation as it passes through parliament.

Mr McConnell said the health arguments outweighed the licensed trade's claims that jobs would be lost.

Frankly I'm getting bloody sick of people thinking they've some right to burn toxic fucking chemicals wherever the fuck they like in public. If they want to fuck up their own house let them do it there, but the cries of discrimination I keep hearing from fucking addicts that they wont be able to spark up in pubs and resteraunts makes me sick.[/rant]

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-11-11 05:11am

Isn't this article about the losses that would be incurred by pubs and clubs, not smokers talking about their right to inhale said disgusting fumes?

However, I'd be interested to know how many people don't go to pubs/clubs because of the reek of smoke that gets into your hair and your clothes simply by walking in. I've never heard of any club/pub with effective ventilation for such concerns, let alone been to one.

(one of the reasons I hate pubs is because of the stench of cigarette smoke)

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-11 05:18am

Vympel wrote:Isn't this article about the losses that would be incurred by pubs and clubs, not smokers talking about their right to inhale said disgusting fumes?

However, I'd be interested to know how many people don't go to pubs/clubs because of the reek of smoke that gets into your hair and your clothes simply by walking in. I've never heard of any club/pub with effective ventilation for such concerns, let alone been to one.

(one of the reasons I hate pubs is because of the stench of cigarette smoke)

The article itself has links to interviews with people.
Besides which, a similar ban has been enacted in Ireland with negligable effect on business.

And, part of the reason it would be banned is because pubs etc are a workplace, where people (such as say...me) have to work. If it were something other than bloody smokers would we have any problem saying "Hey, no, we dont want radioactive polonium released into our faces...kindly fuck off."

Sorry, this gets to me as when I can get any work it's usually bar work or bouncing with temp agencies.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2004-11-11 05:53am

One more reason to go over the border, hopefully England will take the hint.

Captain Kruger · Post by **Captain Kruger** » 2004-11-11 06:50am

The same ban has been in place in California for 10 years now. Smokers bitch about having to go outside to light one up, but it doesn't seem to have affected business too badly.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-11 07:14am

I went bar-hopping in Boston not to long ago and the bars there are smoke free. Instead of going home reeking of cigarettes, i reeked of italian sausage and peppers from the street corner grill stands that surround every bar in the city and lure you in like a pied piper with their intoxicating aroma. mmmmmmmm sausage.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2004-11-11 08:50am

Here in Ottawa, smoking has been banned for a few years except in one's home, car, or outdoors (except at parks and open-air stadiums and fields, etc.).

The immediate result to this is the realization that smokers are one of the last groups of people that it is completely okay to make fun of, especially when you are sitting in your office on a cold winter day and laughing and pointing at the sorry addicts huddled together outside your window, freezing their asses off. Hell, I've heard more than a few people note that there is less and less respect for smokers these days.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-11 08:54am

Col. Crackpot wrote:I went bar-hopping in Boston not to long ago and the bars there are smoke free. Instead of going home reeking of cigarettes, i reeked of italian sausage and peppers from the street corner grill stands that surround every bar in the city and lure you in like a pied piper with their intoxicating aroma. mmmmmmmm sausage.

That's almost as bad. I'd feel perpetually hungry if I smelt that all the time.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-11-11 07:03pm

I think it's hilarious; these laws wouldn't be necessary if the 'dirty addict' attitude was applied to smokers. I don't have a problem with people smoking in a park or whatever, but if you asked someone to stop because you're allergic or your kids are there or whatever, the smoker would just tell you to get bent. If it was a whizzhead, or a weedmonkey, it'd be terrible that they were doing it in public. But no, smoking is okay. Even inside a fucking social venue. Whats wrong with that?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 07:08pm

Smokers honestly seem to think that the Declaration of Independence says "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a cigarette".

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-11 07:13pm

Stark wrote:I think it's hilarious; these laws wouldn't be necessary if the 'dirty addict' attitude was applied to smokers. I don't have a problem with people smoking in a park or whatever, but if you asked someone to stop because you're allergic or your kids are there or whatever, the smoker would just tell you to get bent. If it was a whizzhead, or a weedmonkey, it'd be terrible that they were doing it in public. But no, smoking is okay. Even inside a fucking social venue. Whats wrong with that?

You dont even want to know the fit my gf threw when I pointed out that the difference between a smoker and a crack addict was simply one of scale....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 07:15pm

That's why I like to refer to them as "tobacco junkies". It really pisses them off when I use that term (however impeccably accurate it may be) instead of "smokers". But I don't see people referring to heroin addicts as "injectors".

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-11 07:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:That's why I like to refer to them as "tobacco junkies". It really pisses them off when I use that term (however impeccably accurate it may be) instead of "smokers". But I don't see people referring to heroin addicts as "injectors".

Same can be said of coffee addicts, alchoholics and so on. Because it's a socially accepted drug, they don't see it as a drug per se and feel insulted if you connect the dots.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-11-11 07:50pm

I do believe Big Tobacco puts shitloads of unnecessary chemicals in cigarettes to enhance addictiveness and lethality. Apparently they'd rather we kill ourselves in horrible ways than quit!

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2004-11-11 09:46pm

Yes well, a lack of integrity from an industry that makes billion purveying death is hardly surprising. Smoker's can bitch all they want about discrimination, but I think we who are smart enough not to smoke or to have quit should have the right to be free from their dangerous habit. They can cry all they want, but second hand smoke is bad for you, especialy for children. Let 'em stand out in the cold, see if that doesn't teach 'em to quit.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-11-12 12:47am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:That's why I like to refer to them as "tobacco junkies". It really pisses them off when I use that term (however impeccably accurate it may be) instead of "smokers". But I don't see people referring to heroin addicts as "injectors".
Same can be said of coffee addicts, alchoholics and so on. Because it's a socially accepted drug, they don't see it as a drug per se and feel insulted if you connect the dots.

I suppose it's because the ratio of junkies/occasional smokers is a lot higher than the ratio of junkies/occasional alcohol or coffee drinkers.

99% of smokers do it as habit (ranging from one to 20-30 a day, one day without their dose and they go apeshit) while a lot of people can get shitfaced at a party and then forget about alcohol for a year until it comes up again.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2004-11-12 02:18am

I have to hand it to California, they have it right. When I visited LA in September and I went out to a bar or club, there was no smoking allowed in the building at all. Even the strip clubs are smoke free. Now Texas needs to follow that lead and ban all smoking at bars and clubs.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-12 02:18am

As a former smoker (quit over 4 years ago) let me add my $.02.

If bar owners want to ban smoking, more power to them.
I don't like being in a smoky barroom myself. Stale cigarette smoke just stinks.

However, the real whiney bitches are the nonsmokers who insist that a private business conform to their wishes and to hell with what the owner and the rest of his customers think.

Ban smoking in publicly owned venues? Not a problem as it's within the government's legitimate power to ban smoking in facilities it controls.

Convince a bar owner to voluntarily ban smoking? Great.
Tell me that I *have* to ban smoking in my bar? Piss off.

You don't like being around smokers?
Then do what I did; quit going places where people smoke.

If business drops off, then maybe the owner will consider putting a smoking ban in place.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-12 02:22am

However, the real whiney bitches are the nonsmokers who insist that a private business conform to their wishes and to hell with what the owner and the rest of his customers think.

Clarification: Nonsmokers who insist that the government ban smoking in private businesses are the whiney bitches.

Nothing wrong with lobbying businesses yourself.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-11-12 03:11am

Glocksman wrote:
However, the real whiney bitches are the nonsmokers who insist that a private business conform to their wishes and to hell with what the owner and the rest of his customers think.
Clarification: Nonsmokers who insist that the government ban smoking in private businesses are the whiney bitches.

Nothing wrong with lobbying businesses yourself.

Well that depends on if its the government who pays the medical bills for those who get cancer from passive smoking.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-11-12 08:44am

As a Smoker myself I support a limted Ban, what I would like to see is, either it is banned or two seperate Bars, with Walls and doors between them. You have the Smoking Bar, and the Non-smoking Bar, and from that a choice, you can go to the smoking Bar if you smoke or the Non-smoking if you don't.

If a Pub can't support two seperate rooms then it is a Non-smoking Pub full stop. That way the people not wanting to Passivly smoke can avoid it, and those who want to Smoke can smoke.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-11-12 09:05am

Skelron wrote:As a Smoker myself I support a limted Ban, what I would like to see is, either it is banned or two seperate Bars, with Walls and doors between them. You have the Smoking Bar, and the Non-smoking Bar, and from that a choice, you can go to the smoking Bar if you smoke or the Non-smoking if you don't.

If a Pub can't support two seperate rooms then it is a Non-smoking Pub full stop. That way the people not wanting to Passivly smoke can avoid it, and those who want to Smoke can smoke.

Or, the smokers can have a bus shelter outside, which is the usual way of things here with non-smoking establishments anyway.

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2004-11-12 11:19am

Glocksman wrote:
However, the real whiney bitches are the nonsmokers who insist that a private business conform to their wishes and to hell with what the owner and the rest of his customers think.
Clarification: Nonsmokers who insist that the government ban smoking in private businesses are the whiney bitches.

Nothing wrong with lobbying businesses yourself.

So I am a whiney bitch when I complain about going into a public place and having to breathe air that will give me cancer because some other fuckhead made that choice for me? If I were to take any one of the many chemicals found in cigarette smoke such as Arsenic and just started spraying it around in clouds for people to breathe or hooked a hose up the tailpipe of my truck and charged people to suck on the hose and caused people to die or get sick, it would be considered illegal and I would be placed in jail. Why is smoking different? Personally I believe smoking should be outlawed entirely. Smoking is not something a person can do in public without affecting everyone around them. Give one good reason why they should be allowed to smoke in public or at all, there is no need or use for it. Even alcohol can claim at least one benefit to health, it is good for the heart to drink one glass before bed.

there are more than 400 chemicals in cigarette smoke

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-11-12 11:23am

Death from the Sea wrote: Personally I believe smoking should be outlawed entirely. Smoking is not something a person can do in public without affecting everyone around them. Give one good reason why they should be allowed to smoke in public or at all, there is no need or use for it. Even alcohol can claim at least one benefit to health, it is good for the heart to drink one glass before bed.

as much as i agree with the stance that smoking is a bad thing and shouldn't be permitted in public, outlawing would make things incredibly bad. you remember what happened with prohibition, right? and just to nitpick, it's not alcohol that's good for the heart, it's wine that's good for the heart.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-12 11:40am

smoking will NEVER be banned outright in the United States. Do you want to know why? Tobacco campanies can sell a carton of cigarettes for $10 and make a profit (the price of tax free cartons of marlboros and winston's at the duty free shop in Phillipsberg, Sint Maarten). Here when taxed cartons cost upward of $40 a carton. That means on any given cigarette the various govenments in the US collect THREE TIMES THE REVENUE that the tobacco companies do. Do you think for an instant the government will just walk away from that?