Originally posted by Green Arrow
There's not even scientific evidence to backup second-hand smoke. Just shameless propaganda. What kindof capitalist are you bardock?Besides, if second-hand smoke is dangerous to other's health besides the person smoking, then most drugs are. Considering most are smoked.
And the fact that you'd quantify tobbacco in the same threat area as say crack, well, that's just retarded.
That is the problem. Some say there is endless some ther eis none. I heard that there was tests on Irish barkeepers that showed that the harm was immense. So, who am I to beleive. You or one of Germany's most famous magazines? It is all propaganda. I want neutral information and I don't get that anywhere.
Crack is none of my business. If you want to take crack go ahead. It's your body. **** it up all you want.
if it runs a RISK of endangering someone else, it should be banned publicly. banned altogether, no. at the very least, its effects are detrimental to non-smokers (if not out-right dangerous) in that it stinks, it makes non-smokers cough and it prevents LARGER problems to anyone in a room who is allergic or senstive to smoke. if a person hadn't bathed in months and wanted to sit and eat at your table would it be considered all right to ask them to leave -- or at least bathe BEFORE coming back?
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is the problem. Some say there is endless some ther eis none. I heard that there was tests on Irish barkeepers that showed that the harm was immense. So, who am I to beleive. You or one of Germany's most famous magazines? It is all propaganda. I want neutral information and I don't get that anywhere.Crack is none of my business. If you want to take crack go ahead. It's your body. **** it up all you want.
The same test were done in the U.S. too. Bartenders and waitresses who were nonsmokers were tested and they all showed some degree on damage to their lungs depending on how long they had worked in the environment. Second hand smoke is harmful to others in the long run.
Originally posted by leonidasThe same could be said to Mobile Phones. (cell phones)
if it runs a RISK of endangering someone else, it should be banned publicly. banned altogether, no.
Originally posted by leonidasphones are noisy.
at the very least, its effects are detrimental to non-smokers (if not out-right dangerous) in that it stinks,
Originally posted by leonidasThey make people irritated, they affect concentration, and if someone suffers from panic attacks or has a bad heart condition, and then a mobile phone rings, whoops.
it makes non-smokers cough and it prevents LARGER problems to anyone in a room who is allergic or senstive to smoke.
Originally posted by leonidasAre you saying smokers eat other people's food and are rude and smelly?
if a person hadn't bathed in months and wanted to sit and eat at your table would it be considered all right to ask them to leave -- or at least bathe BEFORE coming back?
I say it SHOULD in certain places such as public restaurants etc. But i think it should be allowed only in just some of the pubs etc, then people have a decision on whether to go in them pubs and smoking places..but also have another decision of going to a place that is not none smoking. Therefore it would be much more fair to everyone. It is just simple as in my opinion lol.
Originally posted by drewbiefanNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
I say it SHOULD in certain places such as public restaurants etc. But i think it should be allowed only in just some of the pubs etc, then people have a decision on whether to go in them pubs and smoking places..but also have another decision of going to a place that is not none smoking. Therefore it would be much more fair to everyone. It is just simple as in my opinion lol.
Smokers have the right to smoke when/where/what they want. Just like people who have mobile phones use their phones when/where they want. Besides, pubs have non-smoking and smoking areas anyway.
Yes i agree.
But do yu not think that it would be fair on those that want to sit in public places without breathing in others smoke? would not want that. Admittedly there are often non smoking areas in a lot of public places, however some are not like that and in my opinion that is wrong. It could not be any fairer than to do half and half, some smoking places, some not. Do you not see that?
But the issue is, phones do not affct people like smoke does.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.Smokers have the right to smoke when/where/what they want. Just like people who have mobile phones use their phones when/where they want. Besides, pubs have non-smoking and smoking areas anyway.
Well, even if it wasn't harmful it might still be infringing on the rights of others. Kinda like screaming at someone that sits in a bar for 5 minutes. Which you wouldn't be allowed to do either.
the smoking ban in public places here in Scotland has worked well
the pubs and restaraunts are better places to be. the smokers sho continue just get on with it...the pubs are still doing a great trade
the only downside is when going to clubs...by that time of the night the smell of body odour is pretty rank...the smoke used to disguise it...now its pretty ripe...
the trick is to avoid the shit clubs where they pack people in like meat and go to the late bars instead