Has anyone whinged about the smoking ban yet?
 

Because, if you ask me (and if you're not asking me, you're an idiot) it's fucking ridiculous. I, a better person than some twatty prick with a 4x4 and vegetarian shoes and FUCKING DE-CAFFEINATED GREEN FUCKING TEA, am made to stand outside like I'm some kind of lowlife when, in fact, it is those FUCKING vegetarian 'my lungs hurt' fucking cumrags who are taking over this country with their fucking organic hair braids and fucking organic faces who should not only be made to stand outside, but they should be made to exersize vigourously until their measly bodies collapse under the weight of too much fucking organic fucking salad.

A PINT IS BETTER WITH A FAG. SMOKING MAKES YOU COOL AND HARD AND A BETTER PERSON.

Quite what is wrong with this world I don't know, and I'm not going to find out, because I do my best thinking with a tab and some booze in a booze-hole. So, thanks government, I was going to save the world, but now I'm just going to sulk in the corner. Bastards.

Note Bene for non-Uk residents: England has a moratorium on smoking anywhere apart from your own home starting on Sunday.

Glossary.

Bastards: The sort of people who stop people doing things they enjoy.
Booze: Alcoholic beverage
Booze-hole: Establishment for the drinking of Alcoholic beverages
Cumrags: Cloth used to remove semen from the bellies, penises and hair of teenage boys; also, a less than favourable person.
Fag: Cigarette
Prick: A foolish or contemptuous person.
Tab: Cigarette
Twatty: Exhibiting the characteristics of a twat
Twat: Irritating or obsequious person.

but i want to smoke at clubs and gigsssssssssssssssssssssss

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww










was that whining enough for you??

Yeah but you can smoke in the street and that. And in parks whilst feeding the ducks. You can even blow smoke in the faces of small children who are flying their kites.

We've had the ban here in Wales for 2 months or so. I don't smoke but I'm not sure I like the ban.

I quit the cigs 18 months ago, so am not so bothered myself, to be honest. I do have a lot of friends who smoke, and I do feel for them. I have a feeling that, big cities and towns aside, this new law will be roundly ignored. Also heard today that a group of people have submitted a legal challenge to this ruling.

BUT THE WIND WILL TAKE IT AWAY BEFORE IT CLINGS TO THEIR TINY LINELESS FACES. Your idea is poor. Poor idea.

if this had happened here (it's almost that bad but not quite), I'd be crying along with you.....however it's NOT here so:

These smoking bans are ridiculous! You can't smoke anywhere these days!!

When you eat organic food and don't smoke:

When you smoke:


Which would you rather be, eh?

Omaha has enforced a smoking ban in the last few months too. Sort of.

They've made it illegal to smoke in bars* and restaurants, and have made it up the employers discretion on whether they will allow their employees to smoke on the company grounds. It is a bummer. All I ask is that I'm able to enjoy a smoke in a bar without having to go outside in the freezing cold/depressive heat.

*You can still smoke in bars that have keno.

next they will try taking the very air from our lungs, racist tories.

Lots of cities in the USA have banned smoking indoors, and within 30 feet of doorways and entrances. I can understand banning it in government offices and such, but I have said it before and I will say it again that it is FASCIST and UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the government to dictate who a business owner can and should serve. It is the owner's prerogative!

Think about this. they claim that it is for the public good, but what they are doing is putting the desires of a minority over the desires of a majority, and forcing everyone to accept it.

a bar owner, or any proprietor, has the right o refuse service to anyone, and has the right to serve anyone he/she wishes. That means, constitutionally, that a bar owner can refuse service to non smokers and serve only smokers IF HE SO DESIRED. By federal law, and local and state law now, that proprietor's rights have been taken away. he is forced to serve who he is told to serve.

If you do not like ducks, do not go to a duck pond. You cannot ask for the ducks to be removed from the pond so you can ejoy the pond. If you do not liek smoke, DON'T GO TO BARS! It is a simple as that.

Like Chris Rock said, "first they make sure you cannot smoke in bars, what next? are they gonna outlaw drinking and talking too?"

It is a fucking precedent setter I think, which will come back to bite us all in the ass. if they can do this "for the public good" then they will use it as an example to get rid of anything else they deem not for the "public good", which could be anything from skin mags, to candy, to extreme sports, to watching TV

fuck this makes me so mad.

Luckily here in Hosuton most abr owners have told the city to FUCK OFF (because it is their RIGHT) and since there are only like 10 inspectors in a city with over 5000 restaurants and bars, fuck em right?

Smokers, listen. The ban gives you the easiest opener ever! "Aint this smoking band stupid?" "yeah i know what you mean" "My names " x " by the way

Nicely said.

I'll get right in line with you the day that Motorhead (or whoever else I want to see) plays two shows in every town they stop at, with one at a smoking venue and one at a nonsmoking venue. There is no fucking alternative "choice" with regard to one-night-only Rock Bar events like that, so in that case I tell the smokers straight up:

Welcome to my world, fuckers. I lived with your disgusting, invasive bullshit for two decades and if I can suffer for my fandom by attending shows where I was putting up with itchy eyes and a sore throat and smelly clothes and hair, you guys can all go ahead and suffer for your fandom by not smoking for two lousy hours, or going outside if you have to.

I have zero sympathy for "smokers' rights" in this regard. Get bent.

In the case of neighborhood watering holes with no live music or specific events, I say go ahead and smoke, because I don't choose to hang out in those kinds of places and they are definitely easily avoided.

I complained about it here in the US - a lot - but I'm a libertarian.

I'm a non-smoker and I hate smoky bars. But dammit, if a bar or restaurant wants to allow smoking, it should be their choice, not the government's. If I don't like smoky bars, I don't go. If it's a concert I really want to see, I deal with it.

Some venues could have some kind of middle ground - like not allowing smoking in the main area, but having a smoker's lounge that's still close enough to hear the music so when those fiends need their fix they can do it in peace without imposing on others.

In the end though, governments need to back the fuck off and let private establishments choose whether or not they allow smoking.

I'm glad to see some people agreeing with my viewpoint. I think this came up once before on the board and the opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of the bans.

you're all sheep.

Movie theaters are private establishments and no one says shit about the fact that you can't smoke at movies anymore.

Some people want movies that depict people smoking to be rated for adults - so all movies with anyone smoking would be rated R.

These people need a new cause. There are far more toxic things in this world than cigarette smoke and second hand smoke.

sex drugs and rock n roll!!!!

I do not smoke.

I LIKE smoke free shows. The roots gave one recently. cool stuff.

I am talking about BARS. people who go to a bar to drink liquid poison are concerned about caseous poison? stupid!

the ban on smoking in movie theatres was not a bout the smoke but about fire harzards in a very very flammable enclosed space.
same with banning smoking on planes.

put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Glice fucking rules.

they are planning on doing this sometime here, i doubt it will ever happen.

Well, the overwhelming majority of rock shows take place in bars, do they not?
I do think a smoking ban will be detrimental in the short term to bars with an older population of mostly smokers who just want a place to hang out and pickle their livers in peace until they die of a delightful combination of cirrhosis and lung cancer, but for bars/nightclubs that are primarily music venues that also serve alcohol while putting on one-night-only entertainment events to draw the people in? All I see is a tradeoff of misery from one group to the other, and I'm going to enjoy it.

EVERY law is social engineering. No law is there to tell you what you CAN do. They all exist in order to forbid or limit behavior.
Very rarely does a new law make my life easier, and I'm gonna go ahead and have a good time with this one. There are any number of infinitely more "fascist" legal issues out there than this one.

Doesn't really matter what the motivation behind it was to me. The end result is still the same, and people got the fuck over it.

I like smoking bans. I hate the smell of smoke that clings to me after I've been in a bar or restaurant. It's terrible. And it interferes with my enjoyment of the food, drinks.

I smoked for a short time when I was younger. Smoke interferes with your taste of wine and beer, it doesn't enhance it.

I hate walking past smokers on the sidewalk and having to inhale their cloud of carcinogens. Yuck.

Smoking is disgusting. I hate it.

Ban it everywhere, I say.

Meh, outside is outside.
Pretty hard to argue that there isn't decent ventilation when you're outside.

Yeah, but you gotta walk past em. It blows into your face.

Did I say I hate smoking?

smoking health hazard

smoking and it's effects kill over 100 thousand USA citizens a year.

drinking and it's effects kill over half a million a year (counting drunken driving accidents)

BAN ALCOHOL AGAIN!

that would increase the public health so much more than banning smoking!

plus smoking cigarretes does not make you drunk, make you lose control and rape, steal, fight, shoot, jump, or in any way cause pain to another human because you smoked a cig or a cigar or a pipe.

the same can NOT be said for alcoholic beverages.

Long live hypocrisy!!!

Yeah, I guess you're right.
The reason I don't drink much at all is because every time I do, I have to apologize to all my friends for my rapey, trigger-happy behavior the next day.

Hell, ban driving too.

There's a lot of people that don't do what I want them to be doing when I'm on the road. I'm putting myself at risk (and possibly others) every time i get into my car.

Or this. The economist's view (gotta love it):

What if smoking actually produces a societal benefit rather than a cost? What if the savings in Social Security and healthcare payments due to early deaths caused by smoking are greater than what is spent on providing medical care for smoking-related problems?

What is it about cigarettes that have produced a backlash that other quite dangerous products haven't?

I'll drink to that!

How about we have a ban on totally unrelated issues being used as corrolary examples when addicts are confronted with the glaring obnoxiousness and intrusiveness of their habit?

The thing about cigarettes that bothers people is that the irritating effects are not solely confined to the user. It's fucking annoying, plain and simple, and when a habit/lifestyle is that entrenched, legal bullying is really the only way to get people to wake up to the fact that their behavior has become irritating as fuck to most other people when out in public.

You also need a license to drive, which takes effort to get and can be revoked when you fuck up.

It's not unrelated, the product is just different. If we had started this with a hypothetical product X, and had talked about the dangers of this product, and then asked if it should be banned - we would have ended up banning cars instead of smoking.

There's a lot of obnoxious effects of other people's driving that are not solely confined to themselves either. Pretty fuckin' annoying too. I'd bet that what comes out of a car's exhaust pipe is probably worse for you than what comes out of someone else's cigarette.

Playing the addict card I see. Ever heard of rational addiction? I'd imagine that plenty smokers (not all) make rational calculations about their addictive choice.

I'm for the ban. Public smoking infringes my rights.

just like there are responsible drinkers out there there are also tons of responsible smokers, but smokers are not given the benefit of the doubt.

I have apersonal theory that it is the massive amount of airborne pollutants plaed into te air by our vehicles, power plants, industrial plants, etc etc that are truly causing the high rates of lung cancer we see, and that smokers and smoking are the red herring, the scapegoat, that can be waved in front of our sheep faces.

Notice that the US government decrys smoking and it's ill effects but does nothing to keep US tobacco companies from marketing and selling twenty times more to china a dn india and asia and africa than they ever would selling to the USA market, by giving them subsidies to use tax money to advertise in these foreign countries. There is no concern for the elfare or well being or general health of people shown there. they only care when it is convenient for them.


stay blind people! it makes TV better!

I think that's the best way to frame this argument. I still don't agree with the ban, but framing it as a personal liberty/rights issue on the side of non-smokers is the way to go about making that argument.

You don't need a license to smoke, and you don't need much training to start either.

So what should I do about the people that drive, with a license, and still suck at it and put me in harm's way?

Agreed, but there again you run into the problem of smokers' rights groups telling you to "just stay home if you don't like it." Circular arguments.

Well, some of them get ticketed and fined on occasion; even jailed for major infractions...

I could easily handle driving a car at 100 MPH, but just because I can do it doesn't mean I get to.

Still has fuck-all to do with smoking.