Smoking in the toilets

[Gribz 919]

Why should smokers get a room when all they'll do is drop ash and but-ends on the floor while browning the paint with their smoke? There is also the question of who has to clean it and whether that will affect their health.

 

If smokers were generally clean and considerate of others, maybe they would get more of a break.

 

Smokers kill us with their smoke, make our eyes water and smart, make us cough and feel ill, make us and our clothes smelly, burn our skin and clothes, dirty our clothes with their ash, ruin our meals with their smoke, make where-ever they go dirty, smelly and covered in ash and burns, and then they want sympathy when we try to protect people from the above?

 

Hmm...

 

Maybe they need a room but it's hard to care. There would have to be many of them which costs quite a bit of money just for the space and then you have to consider the ventilation, the cleaning and the redecoration.

 

There's also the point that if you can't do without a cigarette for a couple of hours then you have an addiction - that means you are not smoking for pleasure, you are ruled by your cravings. Maybe then it's time to ask yourself if it's time to get back in control of your own body. You would advise an alcoholic to go to AA so why not do something similar for yourself. It would also not only benefit your health and longevity but would save you and your family a fortune.

 

It's funny how people feel so staunchly that it's their right to be addicted to something that does nothing but harm...

 

Post of the day Calscot, I couldnt agree more. You took a lot of words out my mouth.

 

Also agree if someone cant go a certain time without a smoke then thats a mental problem.

 

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that everyone has human rights - that is spot on. Smokers can smoke in area's given while non smokers dont breathe it in.

 

Maybe the solution would be to make the Club Deck a smoking only section but cover the front with a massive pain of glass so the smoke couldnt escape to other sections of the ground.

[pete 2,499]

Just heard Gerry McNee on the radio saying, smoking in the toilets at ibrox is sectarian because the bogs turn blue with smoke.

[bmck 117]

Why should smokers get a room when all they'll do is drop ash and but-ends on the floor while browning the paint with their smoke? There is also the question of who has to clean it and whether that will affect their health.

 

what a pointless argument.

 

1. why should we be allowed food at games if all we do is throw it on the ground when we're done? hell, why should we be allowed any product if all we do is throw away the container and kill our planet (and hence our children etc).

 

2. there are absolutely no health issues related to sweeping up fag douts. to suggest so is ridiculous.

 

3. as to "why should they get a room?", a decent (if not conclusive) answer is simply because they exist, and they are of decent number. they are paying fans just like you, and have enjoyed the right to smoke for centuries - to end it all without any tapering out is ridiculous.

 

Smokers kill us with their smoke, make our eyes water and smart, make us cough and feel ill, make us and our clothes smelly, burn our skin and clothes, dirty our clothes with their ash, ruin our meals with their smoke, make where-ever they go dirty, smelly and covered in ash and burns, and then they want sympathy when we try to protect people from the above?

 

oh please. dont make this a moral argument, whilst driving your car, burning non-energy efficient bulbs, buying your clothes from brand names, flying in planes - all of which have a more detrimental effect on the future of the planet - the lives of human beings. just because you personally find smoking icky is no right to deny people their liberty to smoke anywhere, even in designated smoking areas.

 

Maybe they need a room but it's hard to care. There would have to be many of them which costs quite a bit of money just for the space and then you have to consider the ventilation, the cleaning and the redecoration.

 

its hard to care for you, perhaps, because you're selectively ignoring your liberal tendancies - that of empathy with other human's situations -because you Just Dont Like Smoking. i'd like to think other people were more willing to try and accommodate their peers, instead of ostracising them as lepers who deserve no rights because they dont like the same things as you.

 

There's also the point that if you can't do without a cigarette for a couple of hours then you have an addiction - that means you are not smoking for pleasure, you are ruled by your cravings.

 

oh, you're kidding? you honestly think that people who smoke might have an addiction? just as well you're here to point that out to them, calscot, because i think they may not have noticed.

 

of course they have an addiction. thats the point. its been a socially acceptable addiction for the last few centuries and has went vastly out of fashion in the past few months. carefully pointing out that an addiction for centuries may, infact, be an addiction is unhelpful in the extreme - the issue is not whether it would be ideal if they never had the addiction, it is deciding how to deal with it presupposing that they do.

 

saying "you can't do that here" doesn't stop people having addictions.

 

Maybe then it's time to ask yourself if it's time to get back in control of your own body. You would advise an alcoholic to go to AA so why not do something similar for yourself. It would also not only benefit your health and longevity but would save you and your family a fortune.

 

i realise that it must be hard to hear us* underlings from way up there on your high horse - but i think most smokers are intelligent enough to know the benefits of not smoking, but nonetheless decide to/or are to addicted not to continue. this has been the situations for years upon years, and there have been infinitely more helpful ways of getting people off the fags other than your stating the obvious.

 

* i say, us, of course, myself having never smoked

 

It's funny how people feel so staunchly that it's their right to be addicted to something that does nothing but harm...

 

this is a horrifying statement. OF COURSE ITS THEIR RIGHT. rights are something that can only be granted by a government. it has nothing to do with the government what you do to your own body (or, at least, it shouldn't be). you enjoy your right to eating saturated fats, salts, driving, drinking so long as it doesn't affect other people. there are institutions and companies built around allowing you to enjoy these rights - you are accommodated - yet you deny this basic right to smokers.

 

as soon as you are quick to surrender the right to keep yourself from harm to your government, you are in big, big trouble.

 

this country horrifies me.

[ian1964 10,761]

bmck, couldn't have put it any better myself, i am a smoker but as it is illegal to smoke at such venues we have no choice but to stay within the law....

Bye the way, this country horrifies me.

 

 

 

THE LEPER.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lynds 0]

PS there seems to be some people on here who take everything so personally. It's like some show on telly where they talk about Americans being the fattest nation on Earth and some stupid, skinny yank in the audience stands up and says, "That's not true, I'm American and I'm not fat!"

 

Think about it...

 

perhaps you should have reworded some of your thoughts. Then I wouldnt take it personally.

When you say smokers kill us, smokers are dirty and smelly, smokers burn your skin and clothes you should have said 'SOME smokers'.

 

My point about all Rangers fans being bigots was obviously totally lost on you.

 

Still think your are totally small minded which Bmck very eloquently pointed out

[calscot 0]

what a pointless argument.

 

1. why should we be allowed food at games if all we do is throw it on the ground when we're done? hell, why should we be allowed any product if all we do is throw away the container and kill our planet (and hence our children etc).

 

Pretty pointless argument yourself. Many people DON'T discard rubbish, I'm one of them. Hell, I go round picking up other peoples rubbish when I have the time, especially in my own neighbourhood. In fact this is another topic that I'm pretty evangelical about. I don't like it when people smoke selfishly and I don't like it when people toss rubbish around selfishly. I've nothing against people smoking in their own home but I don't like it when it has negative effects on others or our environment.

 

The thing is I don't know many smokers who stop their smoke (which is analogous to rubbish) polluting other people's air, nor many who go around with say a jar and take their ash with them, and I don't even know of a few who take their own butts with them. I also see packets everywhere too.

 

So are you all for discarding anything you like? Sorry I'm totally against it.

 

2. there are absolutely no health issues related to sweeping up fag douts. to suggest so is ridiculous.

 

Maybe a fair point but you'd have to wait for the smoke to clear, and wear rubber gloves. Not entirely ridiculous as it's proven that smoke is a health hazzard.

 

3. as to "why should they get a room?", a decent (if not conclusive) answer is simply because they exist, and they are of decent number. they are paying fans just like you, and have enjoyed the right to smoke for centuries - to end it all without any tapering out is ridiculous.

 

Have you thought about the costs and the amount of space that would be needed. To do this you would have to increase EVERYONE's season ticket price. Accommodation, especially when it will obviously be abused, is expensive. People enjoyed the right to have slaves for a long time and it was ended pretty quickly. When you put up with crap for decades there comes a time to make a stand.

 

oh please. dont make this a moral argument, whilst driving your car,

 

A car's pollution causes far less illness and deaths than passive smoking. They've pretty much cleaned up their act with catalytic converters, and carbon dioxide is the big threat now.

 

However, they reckon the CO2 produced by cars has less impact than the electricity and gas we use at home and work, so everything we do has a guilty impact.

 

But, I don't defend driving the way smokers defend themselves, in fact I cycle to work every day and even bought a bike trailer to take my clubs to the golf course, five miles away. I'm actually considered a bit of a nutter by a smoking friend who would never dream about cycling to a golf club.

 

The trouble is that a car feels like a necessity as the alternatives are generally either very expensive or incredibly inconvenient. I plan to look for a more fuel efficient car the next time I trade in, and in fact would have a motorbike if they didn't seem so dangerous, especially as I've had a pretty bad accident. The car I'm interested in is a Loremo. You can look it up if you're interested.

 

However although I'm culpable with my car, how many smokers also drive one (and do more than my 7000 annual miles)? It's not a case of EITHER smoking or driving. If smoking cut down driving then maybe you'd have a point.

 

My one defence for driving is that it is very useful for transporting me and my stuff to places quickly and easily. What's useful thing about smoking again?

 

burning non-energy efficient bulbs

 

I agree that we should use them and most of my bulbs are of that ilk. They should definitely be encouraged, perhaps by removing VAT and making all government buildings have them, but that's another debate.

 

buying your clothes from brand names

 

Don't quite get this one. Most products have a brand name and those that don't have prices so cheap that they are squeezing it somehow or other.

 

flying in planes

 

This is recent one, planes are actually pretty fuel efficient which is why they are so cheap for travel. The reason they are bad is that they encourage people to travel much farther distances in the name of recreation than they necessarily would.

 

Again I�m guilty, but I also feel guilty and haven�t actually flown at all this year.

 

- all of which have a more detrimental effect on the future of the planet - the lives of human beings. just because you personally find smoking icky is no right to deny people their liberty to smoke anywhere, even in designated smoking areas.

 

Sorry we�ve just been talking about stuff that�s detrimental to the future of the planet and you�re saying that it�s all ok and we should allow people to do as much damage as they like?

 

I�ve completely lost you. I want to save the planet, not kill it. It appears you think certain dubious liberties are more important.

 

its hard to care for you, perhaps, because you're selectively ignoring your liberal tendancies - that of empathy with other human's situations -because you Just Dont Like Smoking. i'd like to think other people were more willing to try and accommodate their peers, instead of ostracising them as lepers who deserve no rights because they dont like the same things as you.

 

I also don�t like violence and so don�t care so much about the rights of people to be violent, does that mean I�m not being empathetic.

 

The trouble in my opinion is that it�s the smokers who are not being empathetic with non smokers or people who like a cleaner environment.

 

oh, you're kidding? you honestly think that people who smoke might have an addiction? just as well you're here to point that out to them, calscot, because i think they may not have noticed.

 

I think you are being naive here, just like many addicted smokers who actually donââ?¬â?¢t think they are addicted, ââ?¬Å?I can stop anytime.ââ?¬Â They think they ENJOY fags when all itââ?¬â?¢s doing is bringing their dopamine up to the normal levels of a non-smoker. If people know smoking is addictive, please, please tell me, why the hell do they start?

 

 

of course they have an addiction. thats the point. its been a socially acceptable addiction for the last few centuries and has went vastly out of fashion in the past few months. carefully pointing out that an addiction for centuries may, infact, be an addiction is unhelpful in the extreme - the issue is not whether it would be ideal if they never had the addiction, it is deciding how to deal with it presupposing that they do.

 

Maybe it is unhelpful, but the lack of acknowledgement is excruciating. Addiction is bad. Can�t you acknowledge that?

 

saying "you can't do that here" doesn't stop people having addictions.

 

But it does lessen the effect of their addiction on others.

 

i realise that it must be hard to hear us* underlings from way up there on your high horse ââ?¬â??

 

Hmm judging by some of what you�ve said maybe your horse is as big as mine, if not bigger. I�ve seen quite a few giant horses from the smokers. What was it you said of being tolerant of intolerance? Sorry but I�m really disappointed in that statement.

 

But maybe Iââ?¬â?¢m a bit pissed off about how incredibly badly Iââ?¬â?¢ve been treated by smokers over the years and then had their ââ?¬Å?rightsââ?¬Â shoved down my throat as well as their poisonous smoke.

 

but i think most smokers are intelligent enough to know the benefits of not smoking,

 

But they seem to have an intelligence bypass when it comes to realising those benefits.

 

but nonetheless decide to/or are to addicted not to continue.

 

And thatââ?¬â?¢s intelligent? Actually this reminds me of the arguments of the proddy bigots that follow Rangers. ââ?¬Å?I know itââ?¬â?¢s wrong and hurtful to others but Iââ?¬â?¢m going to do it anyway, itââ?¬â?¢s my right to do what I want.ââ?¬Â

 

this has been the situations for years upon years, and there have been infinitely more helpful ways of getting people off the fags other than your stating the obvious.

 

Possibly but sometimes things feel like they just have to be said.

 

this is a horrifying statement. OF COURSE ITS THEIR RIGHT. rights are something that can only be granted by a government. it has nothing to do with the government what you do to your own body (or, at least, it shouldn't be). you enjoy your right to eating saturated fats, salts, driving, drinking so long as it doesn't affect other people. there are institutions and companies built around allowing you to enjoy these rights - you are accommodated - yet you deny this basic right to smokers.

 

I try not to eat saturated fat as much as possible, I rarely add salt to anything, I don�t think driving is a right and I�m starting to get used to the idea that we either need alternative fuels or an alternative transport strategy. I�m am all for smokers rights as long as it affects no-one else. Unfortunately, there are very few times when it doesn�t.

 

as soon as you are quick to surrender the right to keep yourself from harm to your government, you are in big, big trouble.

 

When someone is harming you and you are powerless to prevent it, it�s time for the government to step in and I�m glad they do. Companies have legislation against them for pollution, we have legislation for health and safety standards, legislation to punish violence and killing, fire prevention and escape etc, etc. It may be boring and sometimes bureaucratic, but most of the time it�s a pretty good thing.

 

this country horrifies me.

 

Sounds like you should move to Iraq where there are far less rules and law making.

[bmck 117]

Pretty pointless argument yourself. Many people DON'T discard rubbish, I'm one of them. .... I've nothing against people smoking in their own home but I don't like it when it has negative effects on others or our environment.

 

i'm not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or not. assuming the best, i'll restate it. your argument (one part of it) was that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke, or have an area, because someone else will have to pick up after them. extending this logic, burgers whose packets were thrown down , which has to be picked up by other people, should likewise be banned.

 

that is, if smokers douts are an issue (as rubbish) then all things that generate rubbish should be equally be an issue. burgers should be banned just like fag douts as rubbish generators.

 

The thing is I don't know many smokers who stop their smoke (which is analogous to rubbish) polluting other people's air,.... I also see packets everywhere too.

 

1. i hope you can see how ridiculous it is to say with incredulity "Smokers smoke, and having no area to smoke in, smoke in my air". they are polluting other people's air precisely because they have nowhere else to smoke, you complain if they have somewhere to smoke, and you complain if they smoke where you are.

 

2. yes, smokers drop litter. but people also drop big mac boxes, newspapers, fish and chip wrappers - will be ban all those things too? what more (in terms of litter) is achieved by banning smoking that couldn't simply be achieved by enforcing the litter laws we already have in place?

 

So are you all for discarding anything you like? Sorry I'm totally against it.

 

no, i'm the opposite. i just think anyone with half a brain will realise that the answer isn't to ban the things that cause the litter.

 

Maybe a fair point ..... Not entirely ridiculous as it's proven that smoke is a health hazzard.

 

extinguished fag douts are no more hazardous to clean than empty crisp packets.

 

Have you thought about the costs and the amount of space that would be needed. ..... When you put up with crap for decades there comes a time to make a stand.

 

it seems that most big companies who have a large number of smoking clients have managed to provide some facilities without going out of business (pubs/bingos etc), so i'll put down these "put up costs of everyone's season ticket price" down to over enthusiastic posturing, since you cant possibly know the prices involved.

 

also comparing smoking to slavery is one of the wildest metaphors i've seen in a while.

 

A car's pollution causes far less illness and deaths than passive smoking. They've pretty much cleaned up their act with catalytic converters, and carbon dioxide is the big threat now.

 

perhaps if you take it on a yearly basis - but the damage that is being done to the environment by car emissions, when taken on, say, a centuries basis, could be infinitely more devastating.

 

and on another tangent, there are infinitely more deaths on the road per year than there are with smoking - shall be ban cars?

 

However, they reckon the CO2 produced by cars has less impact than the electricity and gas we use at home and work, so everything we do has a guilty impact.

 

well, i hope you're going to be consistent and vote for everything to be banned.

 

But, I don't defend driving the way smokers defend themselves, in fact I cycle to work ..... I'm actually considered a bit of a nutter by a smoking friend who would never dream about cycling to a golf club.

 

yes, you dont defend yourself the way smokers do because you've picked a nice niche wherein your sensibilities can be offended. you say "look, in the last 5 years, X amount of people have died from passive smoking", whilst driving a car that could contribute the end of humanity within 500 years. my point is, that as a moral argument, its nonsense.

 

that being said, i believe its people's right not have to breathe other people's smoke - that is beyond question. but i dont think its right to remove all the rights of the people who do smoke in the process.

 

The trouble is that a car feels like a necessity as the alternatives are generally either very expensive or incredibly inconvenient.

 

quiting smoking is expensive and inconvenient.

 

I plan to look for a more fuel efficient car the next time I trade in, and in fact would have a motorbike ..... The car I'm interested in is a Loremo. You can look it up if you're interested.

 

sounds cool. i'm a bit like you myself on this front, but thats an aside to the main point of debate.

 

My one defence .... quickly and easily. What's useful thing about smoking again?

 

ask a smoker. they'll tell you it calms their nerves/averts boredom/inspires creative thoughts by looking at the swirling smoke. whatever. who cares? 'useful' is a subjective notion.

 

I agree that we should use them and most of my bulbs are of that ilk. They should definitely .... and making all government buildings have them, but that's another debate.

 

should all non-energy efficient bulbs be banned?

 

Sorry we�ve just been t..... that it�s all ok and we should allow people to do as much damage as they like?

 

thats not what i'm saying. i'm talking about the hypocrisy of ostracising smokers whilst you (the generative 'you') are doing just as much harm to the planet - if not more.

 

I also don�t like violence and so don�t care so much about the rights of people to be violent, does that mean I�m not being empathetic.....empathetic with non smokers or people who like a cleaner environment.

 

1. violence and smoking in segregated area are utterly incomparable.

 

2. but how is your cleaner environment affected by smokers having a smoking area? just dont go in there.

 

I think you are being naive here, just like many addicted smokers who actually don�t think they are addicted, ........., please, please tell me, why the hell do they start?

 

why does anyone do stupid things? when you start going down the road of regulating other people's stupidity you're walking straight into fascism.

 

Maybe it is unhelpful, but the lack of acknowledgement is excruciating. Addiction is bad. Can�t you acknowledge that?

 

where have i said otherwise? i thank god i've never tried a cigarette. total waste of money and health. my uncle right now is going through an excruciating death due to lung cancer. its heartbreaking.

 

just because i think addiction is bad doesn't mean i automatically agree that whatever your chosen social-economic-criminal punishment for smokers is just.

 

 

Hmm judging by some of what youââ?¬â?¢ve said maybe your horse is as big as mine, if not bigger. .... pissed off about how incredibly badly Iââ?¬â?¢ve been treated by smokers over the years and then had their ââ?¬Å?rightsââ?¬Â shoved down my throat as well as their poisonous smoke.

 

you wont get me arguing ever that you need inhale another's smoke, or be in a situation where you are forced to inhale another's smoke. just because i agree with this sentiment doesn't mean that i'm going to condone you approach with how to deal with them "denying them any rights because they are smelly and icky and hurting themselves". i stand by what i said - i think one must speak from a pretty high horse to deny another their right to smoke just because you think its stupid.

 

But they seem to have an intelligence bypass when it comes to realising those benefits.

 

its not a matter of intelligence. there are loads of intelligent junkies. their reasoning is affected by their addiction - thats how addiction works (thats what makes 'addiction problem' a different medical term than 'discontinuation problem').

 

And thatââ?¬â?¢s intelligent? Actually this reminds me of the arguments of the proddy bigots that follow Rangers. ââ?¬Å?I know itââ?¬â?¢s wrong and hurtful to others but Iââ?¬â?¢m going to do it anyway, itââ?¬â?¢s my right to do what I want.ââ?¬Â

 

you seem to have this idea that the-right-thing-to-do is the same as the-most-intelligent-thing-to-do. one considers morality, the other logic. they aren't the same thing. i can say it is morally wrong to be bigotted without saying its morally wrong to smoke.

 

I try not to eat saturated fat as much as possible, I rarely add salt to anything, I don�t think driving is a right and I�m starting to get used to the idea that we either need alternative fuels or an alternative transport strategy. I�m am all for smokers rights as long as it affects no-one else. Unfortunately, there are very few times when it doesn�t.

 

should we ban saturated fats? i just prefer to trust that people will eventually decide they are a bad idea of their own accord without being forced by a government or a bunch of moralist lobbyists.

 

also, i'm not sure what school of logical thought say "because there are currently rarely times when smoking doesn't affect others, the only solution is banning, and not seeking alternatives". it certainly seems the New Labour way, but i always credited you as a thinking person.

 

When someone is harming you and you are powerless to prevent it, it�s time for the government to step in and I�m glad they do.

 

whose harming me, other than me, if i go to a shop and buy fags and smoke them at my leisure? who are you to deny me that right? you might think its stupid, but i dont - i may be a nihilist, and all your common sense in the world isn't going to affect me. you cant just ban things because you dont like them - you can only ban them when they affect you (and banning - wholesale denial of liberty - should always be a last resort when all other alternatives have been considered).

[Guest citizen66]

calscot you have to be the most perfect human being on the planet!! the leaves on the trees at mine have fell off could you come over and tidy them up please??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JOKE!!!

[calscot 0]

i'm not sure whether you're deliberately missing the point or not. assuming the best, i'll restate it. your argument (one part of it) was that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke, or have an area, because someone else will have to pick up after them. extending this logic, burgers whose packets were thrown down , which has to be picked up by other people, should likewise be banned.

 

So you're point is that if we ban smoking because of litter (which is only a secondary consideration after the fact at best it irritates those who are not smokers and at worst kills them), that we should ban eating due to the litter... Now I may be reaching out on a limb here but banning smoking I think may improve society, banning eating, while it would probably benefit the planet enormously would have certain knock on effects on our society.

 

And you say I'm being ridiculous?

 

that is, if smokers douts are an issue (as rubbish) then all things that generate rubbish should be equally be an issue. burgers should be banned just like fag douts as rubbish generators.

 

I think you know this is a more complicated subject and I would suggest that we should perhaps ban people who litter or pollute (and by definition, those that smoke) inside the stadium. There is definitely a lot of education needed in our society about litter and it's something I'd really like to see tackled. But people do have to eat and so I wouldn't ban eating per se due to the waste it causes.

 

However, there is a higher percentage of people who smoke and drop smoking related litter (in my experience, close to 100%) than people who eat and drop eating related litter. In fact I've read that almost one third of litter dropped on roads and streets is smoking related. I think most of the rest is anecdotally sweet and junk-food related and I think the younger generation are responsible for a huge chunk of this which is where education and responsible parenting could help.

 

Not only that smoking related litter can cause fire, injure people and damage property. Wasn't it a cigarette started the Bradford Stadium disaster?, I've been hit by a lit cigarette butt while motorcycling when someone threw it out of a car window, and a friend has his paintwork on his car bonnet damaged by someone tossing away a lit butt. I think it's therefore a particularly nasty kind of litter.

 

1. i hope you can see how ridiculous it is to say with incredulity "Smokers smoke, and having no area to smoke in, smoke in my air". they are polluting other people's air precisely because they have nowhere else to smoke, you complain if they have somewhere to smoke, and you complain if they smoke where you are.

 

You obviously weren't listening, I didn't say they shouldn't have a place, but I was arguing that they didn't have a god given right and that if they cleaned up their act and showed a bit more humility, they may get a lot more sympathy from those that have suffered from their bad habits for decades. Many smokers seem to shout at the top of their damaged lungs about how hard done to they are, without giving much thought to the rest of the population when they light up.

 

I don't know if the law even allows a smoking room in a building open to the public. The practicalities and costs could be prohibative.

 

2. yes, smokers drop litter. but people also drop big mac boxes, newspapers, fish and chip wrappers - will be ban all those things too? what more (in terms of litter) is achieved by banning smoking that couldn't simply be achieved by enforcing the litter laws we already have in place?

 

Like I said it's secondary but if the statistics are true then banning smoking would reduce litter by almost a third. And when you think about it, if you are a smoker and used to systematic littering, who is to say that you are not more likely than a non-smoker to litter with non-smokin related litter? I believe that if you did a study then you would find a correlation.

 

no, i'm the opposite. i just think anyone with half a brain will realise that the answer isn't to ban the things that cause the litter.

 

I didn't use it as a reason to ban smoking, it's just something unnecessary that really bugs me and others. How we tackle it is a different debate which I'm happy to talk about in the Bluenose Lounge.

 

extinguished fag douts are no more hazardous to clean than empty crisp packets.

 

I know which I rather clean up.

 

it seems that most big companies who have a large number of smoking clients have managed to provide some facilities without going out of business (pubs/bingos etc), so i'll put down these "put up costs of everyone's season ticket price" down to over enthusiastic posturing, since you cant possibly know the prices involved.

 

I don't know the prices but I think that I can work out that for 50,000 people there would be significant costs when you include the building space, ventilation, cleaning etc. The money would have to come from somewhere.

 

Perhaps you could compare it to the cost of providing toilets.

 

also comparing smoking to slavery is one of the wildest metaphors i've seen in a while.

 

So you didn't get the point? My argument is that you don't let something go just because it's been around for a while. I thought that using of an extreme example made for less ambiguity. At least it's valid compared to stopping people eating...

 

perhaps if you take it on a yearly basis - but the damage that is being done to the environment by car emissions, when taken on, say, a centuries basis, could be infinitely more devastating.

 

As devastating as street lighting? Or central heating? Or inefficient bulbs? Or deforestation, or a million other ways we creating carbon dioxide. Our length of knowledge of global warming is where our knowledge of tobacco was about 40 years ago. Cars are undoubtedly very useful, can you say the same for cigarettes? And you say my metaphors are wild!

 

I would take a hydrogen fuel cell car with fuel made using renewable energy in an instant. They invented smokeless cigarettes decades ago.

 

and on another tangent, there are infinitely more deaths on the road per year than there are with smoking - shall be ban cars?

 

I doubt it's infinitely more as I thought one in four of us die of smoking related diseases. Is heart disease not the biggest killer in Scotland and is it helped on by smoking?

 

However like anything you have to do a cost-benefit analysis, and the benefit of cars DOES infinitely outweigh that of smoking. And again I don't want to ban smoking completely, just when it hurts non smokers. So to go with that analogy, I do agree with banning cars from the pavements...

 

well, i hope you're going to be consistent and vote for everything to be banned.

 

Is this the best you can come up with? Are you going to be consistent and repeal all laws so that people can do whatever they like?

 

I wouldn't mind banning things that are harmful to others and have no intrinsic value. I believe in doing something to minimise nuisances like pollution, noise, litter, violence, abuse, racism etc.

 

yes, you dont defend yourself the way smokers do because you've picked a nice niche wherein your sensibilities can be offended. you say "look, in the last 5 years, X amount of people have died from passive smoking", whilst driving a car that could contribute the end of humanity within 500 years. my point is, that as a moral argument, its nonsense.

 

Like I said, a car is a small contribution, as is using electricity and heating my home or buying absolutely anything, and even breathing, but one thing I have is humility about owning a car and I try to minimise it but the practical aspects of that make it difficult. There are no practical aspects to giving up smoking, it does not inconvenience you in any way, in fact it benefits everyone.

 

I don't shout loudly about having loads of free parking at Ibrox only a short walk away, and loads more roads nearby that make congestion negligible, or proclaiming my right to rev my engine in an enclosed space or to dump oil everywhere.

 

But maybe you have the answer there. Charge the smokers 7 quid a go to use a smoking room, just like they do for parking...

 

that being said, i believe its people's right not have to breathe other people's smoke - that is beyond question. but i dont think its right to remove all the rights of the people who do smoke in the process.

 

I didn't say you should remove them, but non-smokers rights have been abused for generations which makes it difficult to empathise with those arrogantly claiming how hard done to they are.

 

quiting smoking is expensive and inconvenient.

 

Not as ultimately expensive and inconvenient as continuing. Can you really defend that statement?

 

sounds cool. i'm a bit like you myself on this front, but thats an aside to the main point of debate.

 

I'm happy to talk about it elsewhere...

 

ask a smoker. they'll tell you it calms their nerves/averts boredom/inspires creative thoughts by looking at the swirling smoke. whatever. who cares? 'useful' is a subjective notion.

 

Very subjective, I'm sure a lava lamp could do just as well without killing you or being a nuisance to others...

 

I'm of the school of thought that smoking doesn't calm nerves, the withdrawal of smoking causes them and then smoking fixes the problem that it created.

[calscot 0]

should all non-energy efficient bulbs be banned?

 

There is a time and a place for them as efficient bulbs can't do everything, but more should be done to encourage the use of energy efficient ones such as removing vat and give the manufacturers tax breaks if they reduce prices. Maybe we should put a global warming tax on 100W bulbs...

 

thats not what i'm saying. i'm talking about the hypocrisy of ostracising smokers whilst you (the generative 'you') are doing just as much harm to the planet - if not more.

 

What you accuse me of, I think over 90% of people are guilty of, smokers or not. Switching on a light is a contribution to global warming - although it's getting late and I'm tempted to switch on mine.

 

But like I say, I'm not spouting my rights and I have reasonably valid reasons for the carbon dioxide I create - and I'd like to reduce it. I try to minimise but despite the warnings, tackling the problem is pretty new, and I think I'm getting better all the time. I now switch most of my standby stuff off at the plug (Things with clocks are difficult and so is my sky box as it takes ages to reset - a flaw by Sky or Sony for which there should be new law). I don't leave lights on in empty rooms, and I now compost and recycle my bottles, paper and cans.

 

The difference is that if you attack how bad cars are for the environment, I won't call you a "wank" or threaten to punch you on the nose.

 

I think I'm trying to pollute less but it will take a bit of time due to the practicalities.

 

1. violence and smoking in segregated area are utterly incomparable.

 

Maybe you need to brush up on your comparison powers. Smoking is an assault on peoples eyes, nose, smoke and lungs. Saying people have rights to do what they want applies to violence too. Maybe you just find violence icky and single it out...

 

why does anyone do stupid things? when you start going down the road of regulating other people's stupidity you're walking straight into fascism.

 

So is it fascism to ban heroine use? If people want to kill themselves doing something stupid, I'd rather they didn't inconvenience me with it. So I also don't agree with people killing themselves by throwing themselves in front of a tube. I would also ban people stupidly messing around with fireworks etc, etc, I don't think it's necessarily fascism.

 

just because i think addiction is bad doesn't mean i automatically agree that whatever your chosen social-economic-criminal punishment for smokers is just.

 

I think you're addressing the wrong person. I don't want to actively punish smokers, I'm just fed up with pandering to them and hate their sanctimonious attitude. You’ll probably say that’s ironic but I think I’ve debated enough for it to be a cheap shot.

 

you wont get me arguing ever that you need inhale another's smoke, or be in a situation where you are forced to inhale another's smoke. just because i agree with this sentiment doesn't mean that i'm going to condone you approach with how to deal with them "denying them any rights because they are smelly and icky and hurting themselves". i stand by what i said - i think one must speak from a pretty high horse to deny another their right to smoke just because you think its stupid.

 

Like I said, I've had many of my rights infringed for decades by smokers, I think I've earned the right not to be overly sympathetic to them. I think it is smokers who are on their high horse when there is next to no justification for the inconvenience they cause others. I think I've given a reasonable amount of justification for my stance.

 

I wouldn't want to punish those that don't wash but I'd rather they didn't come with in my smelling range. I would definitely lose sympathy for them if they were arrogant and demanded smellies rights...

 

its not a matter of intelligence. there are loads of intelligent junkies.

 

To be honest I can understand an addiction to heroine more than I understand smoking. From what I can gather, the buzz from a cigarette cannot compare to that of hard intravenous drugs. The fact that smoking really doesn't do much, means to me that whoever does it, although they may be generally intelligent, on this occasion they have had an intelligence bypass.

 

You get many highly intelligent people with no common sense, smoking contravenes the most basic common sense. It's like eating poor tasting mushrooms that are addictive, make your breath stink, your teeth yellow and oh yes - they are poisonous. But hey, they give you a tiny wee buzz before a big downer.

 

their reasoning is affected by their addiction - thats how addiction works (thats what makes 'addiction problem' a different medical term than 'discontinuation problem').

 

And how.

 

you seem to have this idea that the-right-thing-to-do is the same as the-most-intelligent-thing-to-do. one considers morality, the other logic. they aren't the same thing. i can say it is morally wrong to be bigotted without saying its morally wrong to smoke.

 

It depends on your morals. I think it's morally wrong to do something that directly affects the comfort and health of others with little or no benefit to anyone and that causes the person so many health problems.

 

It's not morally wrong to play loud music, but when you're annoying the neighbours every night then it's time to have a look at yourself.

 

should we ban saturated fats? i just prefer to trust that people will eventually decide they are a bad idea of their own accord without being forced by a government or a bunch of moralist lobbyists.

 

I think your trust is obviously misplaced if you consider the obesity rates, and you are missing one of the main culprits. I don't want to eat saturated fat and many other things. But my choice can be very, very limited a lot of the time. The legislation should be aimed at industry, at school dinners, etc, etc.

 

also, i'm not sure what school of logical thought say "because there are currently rarely times when smoking doesn't affect others, the only solution is banning, and not seeking alternatives". it certainly seems the New Labour way, but i always credited you as a thinking person.

 

I'm all for alternatives but they have been ignored over the years - eg the smokeless cigarette. I've also mentioned about education and another alternative is cultural change. Make people see that smoking is unhip, stupid

and antisocial and you might reduce it.

 

whose harming me, other than me, if i go to a shop and buy fags and smoke them at my leisure? who are you to deny me that right? you might think its stupid, but i dont - i may be a nihilist, and all your common sense in the world isn't going to affect me. you cant just ban things because you dont like them - you can only ban them when they affect you (and banning - wholesale denial of liberty - should always be a last resort when all other alternatives have been considered).

 

I've always said people should be allowed to do it in their own home, although if it's in front of their kids you sometimes have to question what kind of parents they are.

 

The funny thing is that they aren't going to ban smoking anytime soon, it would make too big a hole in the budget (although the NHS would cost a lot less).

 

However banning it from public places is a great thing to me and I can't wait till England wakes up and follows Ireland's and Scotland's lead.