Quake3World

What, what do we mean by private clubs? What do we define as a public place?

Restauraunts and Pubs both charge you to be there, you'll be chucked out if you don't buy anything. That's only different to a club in the way you pay. You still pay for entry, and it's open to the public.

If you're talking about like.. some members only gentlements club, I dunno. Might be more to it.

i dont mean in restraunts n shit, i agree with bans in them

im mainly on about pubs an maybe clubs... no shit, go into any public house round here and find me a non smoker...

which is why i believe it should be the establishment owners, because they can work out what theyre customers require and work with it like that

i can choose where i want to go to smoke, you dont wanna come go to a non smoking place..

any private business. club, restaurants, etc. it is a legal product. it should be up to the owner what he/she wants. simple signage could be placed at the entrance so noone has to waste their time.

Foo wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:cus i like to, simple as really

*Absolutely no benefit.
*Serious financial drain.
*Addictive.
*Serious health impact.
*Damaging to those around you.

Yeah, it's just 'cus you like to'. I sound like an anti-smoking campaign, which is a shame. But it's so fucking simple you can put it in a few bullet points, and it's airtight.

aye mun, just like i like to drink, theres no point to do it other than doing it

and if its a public place and a portion of the public likes to smoke then why are our needs not be catered for ?

non smokers get a non smoking room or a non smoking corner but we dont even get that option

losCHUNK wrote:i dont mean in restraunts n shit, i agree with bans in them

im mainly on about pubs an maybe clubs... no shit, go into any public house round here and find me a non smoker...

which is why i believe it should be the establishment owners, because they can work out what theyre customers require and work with it like that

i can choose where i want to go to smoke, you dont wanna come go to a non smoking place..

I think the onus should be on you as a smoker to locate specific places where you can smoke, rather than the default being smokers allowed.

After all, you're the ones impacting everyone else, quite aside from the damage you do to yourself.

My ideal take is a ban on smoking in all public places and businesses, with a licensing system available to places that want to cater for smokers.

How does that sound?

thing is chunk should be able to do what he wants regardless what it does to him.

too much of this bs going on today. do we live in democratic countries or communist countries. where do we draw the line to what we tell citizens to do/or not to do?

that i would be happy with, i mean they have to have a license to serve drink so one for smoking wouldnt be a bad idea

@ foo

Foo wrote:
My ideal take is a ban on smoking in all public places and businesses, with a licensing system available to places that want to cater for smokers.

How does that sound?

thats a good idea foo. goes right along with how i feel.

Foo wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:cus i like to, simple as really

*Absolutely no benefit.
*Serious financial drain.
*Addictive.
*Serious health impact.
*Damaging to those around you.

Yeah, it's just 'cus you like to'. I sound like an anti-smoking campaign, which is a shame. But it's so fucking simple you can put it in a few bullet points, and it's airtight.

that's exactly my point, i just can't see why people smoke. There is absoloutely NO point. You're just wrecking your health, and possibly others.

shadd_ wrote:thing is chunk should be able to do what he wants regardless what it does to him.

too much of this bs going on today. do we live in democratic countries or communist countries. where do we draw the line to what we tell citizens to do/or not to do?

When something goes beyond the individual affecting themself and starts to affect others.

Hey chunkeh

hey miek

its weird no smoking in bars at all here for a few years now.

if only the owners had've gotten blowers to remove the fumes so they wouldnt have reached such ridiculasly high levels

mik0rs wrote:

shadd_ wrote:thing is chunk should be able to do what he wants regardless what it does to him.

too much of this bs going on today. do we live in democratic countries or communist countries. where do we draw the line to what we tell citizens to do/or not to do?

When something goes beyond the individual affecting themself and starts to affect others.

Hey chunkeh

yeah in a public place. clubs/bars are not public. they were not paid for by the public. if you know a club has smoking, it is your choice to go in or not.

losCHUNK wrote:aye mun, just like i like to drink, theres no point to do it other than doing it

Except that alcohol decreases your inhibitions below their normal levels and this allows for various social benefits. With smoking, the releif and relaxation felt after a cig is just contrast to the withdrawl symptoms felt beforehand.

Also, alcohol consumption has no direct impact on those around you, unlike smoking. Alcohol if over-indulged can lead to violence/illness, but in moderation it's fine.

Why am I even giving you this pseudo-science lecture? I don't feel I should be preaching when the relevant information is preached *everywhere* consistently.

Jesus christ, you non smokers are incredibly intolerant.
Ever heard a smoker complain about non smokers? I think not! That because we're friendly people, relaxed and mellow.

We were there at your side for years in those pubs, only occasionally asking for a light and usually not making a fuss about that whole non-smoking behaviour of yours. But now you introduce an apartheid system? Bastards!

shadd_ wrote:
yeah in a public place. clubs/bars are not public. they were not paid for by the public. if you know a club has smoking, it is your choice to go in or not.

We went over this ground like an hour ago. read up.

i was replying to mikor who replied to me. i dont need to read up.

plained wrote:smoking its totally bant-up here everywhere.

no smoking anywhere indoors at all.

just the house, car, and outdoors is ok.

what about global warming :icon11:

Foo wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:aye mun, just like i like to drink, theres no point to do it other than doing it

Except that alcohol decreases your inhibitions below their normal levels and this allows for various social benefits. With smoking, the releif and relaxation felt after a cig is just contrast to the withdrawl symptoms felt beforehand.

Also, alcohol consumption has no direct impact on those around you, unlike smoking. Alcohol if over-indulged can lead to violence/illness, but in moderation it's fine.

Why am I even giving you this pseudo-science lecture? I don't feel I should be preaching when the relevant information is preached *everywhere* consistently.

aye but that wasnt my point, it was simply to say why i smoke

i can understand why the ban is happening but a complete ban is full of shit i reckon, having a licence system would be awesome but telling private business that there premisis will now be a non smoking building is bunk

fags arent illegal, a portion of the public does smoke..

ps, somehow i dont think losCHUNK shud have started this topic.

Alright, sorry for coming on so strong over it.

Regarding telling businesses what they can and can't do.. I don't see a problem with that. After all, there are guidelines on discrimination, health and safety, and numerous other aspects of business designed to empower the individual over the business itself.

Why do they exist? Because they need to. Business has consistently shown itself incapable of self-policing. Indeed, can you imagine a situation where business dictates everything? It's the stuff of doomsday sci-fi/conspiracy theorists.

So I think that gets us over the point about not telling businesses what they can and can't do, when it comes to protecting people's health.

The main point about banning smoking in pubs and restaurants here has been because of workplace health reasons. People who works in pubs and restaurants had to do it in an environment with huge amounts of second-hand smoke, which doesn't exactly make for a safe workplace. And workplace safety is a government matter.

Foo wrote:Alright, sorry for coming on so strong over it.

Regarding telling businesses what they can and can't do.. I don't see a problem with that. After all, there are guidelines on discrimination, health and safety, and numerous other aspects of business designed to empower the individual over the business itself.

Why do they exist? Because they need to. Business has consistently shown itself incapable of self-policing. Indeed, can you imagine a situation where business dictates everything? It's the stuff of doomsday sci-fi/conspiracy theorists.

So I think that gets us over the point about not telling businesses what they can and can't do, when it comes to protecting people's health.

having a 4 foot wide hallways and 6 fire exits instead of 4 is different from smoking in a public area, you dont wanna smell smoke, dun come near me then

Grudge wrote:The main point about banning smoking in pubs and restaurants here has been because of workplace health reasons. People who works in pubs and restaurants had to do it in an environment with huge amounts of second-hand smoke, which doesn't exactly make for a safe workplace. And workplace safety is a government matter.

a few places were banning smoking round bar areas and staff, which was cool