For or against smoking bans in public places? why?

Not quite.
People can die very very slowly when they have cancer or another smoking related illness.
Its effect can affect you for ten twenty years (in various ways).

Plus the ever increasing cost of drugs.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...on+will+crush+the+NHS,+says+expert/article.do

It not only damages your health but others, who then go onto put a burden on the health service.
To a greater or lesser extent.
Possibly for upto 50 years or more.

Not to mention it's effect on the economy:
Loss of productivity.
Smoking-related absences.
Etc.

 

yes, i am a hypocrite

yes - ban all public transport

no, don't ban those chemicals. they make a burny feel

the state should tell you to eat 5 packets of jell-o and 10 packs of pudding a day

 

Eh. It's kind of nice to be able to go anywhere into a pub, drink my face off, and have no concerns if I'm breathing in dioxin.

I mean, waitresses, bar tenders, servers, wait staff of all sorts along with security people and such are just going to continue to win lawsuits against property owners when they discover in a doctor's office that they got lung cancer just for showing up to their shift 5 days a week.

I can really enjoy myself in a restaurant now. My donut doesn't taste like ashtray. It's a glorious law. Who knows? Maybe we'll see child cancer rates decrease in a few years.

 

This not a ban on ciggies.
The gov' just want to curtail it.
Like they are attempting to reduce the amount of particulates in car emissions.

http://www.whatgreencar.com/caremissions.php

Ever heard of water treatment plants?

 

THEY pay for it???

No, you do. The taxpayer pays for it.

 

Yes, more and more and more tax.

 

then they should not work there. the market will do this on itself. either the business will stay open with people smoking, or it will fail, or the owner will see a drop in customers and workers and realize that he needs to change. the gov't doesn't need to regulate this.

let them naturally compete and see how it goes.

 

But chances are if you go to a pub to "drink your face off," then you probably don't care too much about your health anyway. This includes myself, since I have been known to indulge as well. The fact is, people have smoked in bars and pubs since bars and pubs have been around. People go out to enjoy themselves, and if a person doesn't like cigarette smoke (and I do not like it at all), then they should stay home and drink.

 

They wouldn't ban something they're making a killing on. They could care less about curtailing a damn thing. It's the usual bullshit smoke screen...pit the non-smokers against the smokers. Placate one with a smoking ban while you rake in billions of tax dollars from the smoker.

Reducing emissions is another lie.

Yes...I'm sure all that water is completely toxin free now.

 

Pressed Rat, would say to the gov': Don't give me any health care if I get any smoking related illness. Do't worry about me?

 

Well I think it is fine for Socialist countries like Canada to ban smoking. Seem only fair if they are paying for health care.

But in the U.S. we pay high taxes and the government does not pay shit for our health care.

I already can't smoke in bars and restaurants or any public building.

If I am outside and not being a prick by blowing it in someones face...what is the problem?

I pay for my own health care.

 

Indeed. Since when is a bar a health club?

"I feel so much better now that I can drink this poison without smelling smoke."

 

I fully agree...i live in NC so i can still smoke in bars and some public places, but i don't see why you can't smoke in a bar it's a bar last time i checked half the people in a bar smoke and what happened to smoking and non-smoking sections? I can't even have smoke breaks in between classes now because we have a smoke free campus. We pretty much are the cigarette capital of the US figured it would be the last smoker friendly state lol

 

The Gov' say it is a "Public health issue".
So, I could sit here and argue about this that and the other.
Their given reason is: Public Health.
You don't have to believe that is true.
If you don't then why would they ban asbestos, led in paint, certain chemicals in products etc etc etc. A laugh?

Why?

It is.

 

Ari & Odon, I wasn't quite being serious.
as it is I do not receive universal healthcare, so I don't want Uncle Sam in my face grinding his fucking at teeth at me because I fancy a bit of smoke.

 

Well, for one I don't smoke, so I don't really worry about smoking-related illness. As far as government healthcare, they can keep it. I would rather not be poisoned with their chemo or radiated to death. It's funny how we treat cancer with things that actually cause cancer and in many instances kill people before the cancer itself does. If I had cancer, I would seek an alternative treatment that more than likely would not be covered by the state.

I do not look at the government as being my daddy like some people.

 

Issues like this tend to highlight the differences in opinion between the collectivists and the more individualistic and self-sufficient types.

 

The US still has a responsibilty for Public Health (OPHS), right?
Why ignore one of the biggest killers?

Plus the international cabal want this to occur via the UN and the world health authority. Ask Rat about that one.

 

I like secondhand smoke.....

recently in nevada it became illegal to smoke in casinos and bars....

seriously....

utter bullshit, if I want my second hand smoke, I should be able to go downtown, and walk through the slots, and get all of it I need....

now I have to go to the fucking hookah lounge... gawdamn hippies.

 

No, learn the purpose of government. It isn't what it has been believed to be since you have been alive. The government does not exist to manage you, though that is precisely what it does, esp. in the UK.

I swear, you remind me of a character right out of an Orwell novel.