Anti-Smoking Tyrants Killing Scotland's Pubs

SuperPatriot said:
That's why I hate them mothers. Some libs got a law passed in these parts saying I got to wear a seatbelt. Thats them always nosying around in a man's personal beeswax. So happens I did wear a seatbelt. Until they passed that law. Soon as they passed that law, I fucking refused to wear one! Fuck those libs I said everytime I got into my pickup.

Course, one day I hit a stop sign, on account of my neighbor Betsy got it into her head to go trapaising around the neighborhood wearing her underwear and claiming it was some kind of feminast statement, and I was so busy staring at her ass, I never saw the stop sign. Went flying straight out of my window and into the road and just my luck, old lady schumocker was coming along who can't see for shit, and she ran right over my ass, just as i was about to get up. Then she told me it was my fault. I still refuse to wear one. No one is going to tell me what to do, I don't care.
Click to expand...

Okay, Gary Busey, you must be right. :p

You have touched on something that annoys the crap out of me, though and that's the airbag law. Wrong thread to get into that, but it's an example of government stepping in for all the wrong reasons and imposing a horrendously expensive, unjustified requirement on everyone, whether they want it or not.
 
Cypress said:
Then allow for workers to be able to be sequestered from the smoke or to provide adequate ventilation. That doesn't mean it should not be allowed what so ever.



That's what I already suggested, when I said reasonable comprimises could be made. A balance between worker safety and customer convenience.
Click to expand...

Smoking is just all around bad. It's a terrible addiction, and it's hard to kick, and I understand that, having kicked it myself. But nobody wants to be around a smoker. It's just time for people to realize that and stop trying to defend these rights. It stinks up the whole place, and if you're around it it stinks you up. It's bad for everybody who comes into contact with it.
 
That's what I already suggested, when I said reasonable comprimises could be made. A balance between worker safety and customer convenience.

Oh ok sorry I mischaracterized your statements then.

You need to go talk to the legislators in New Jersey then. They aren't as even handed.
 
Darla said:
Smoking is just all around bad. It's a terrible addiction, and it's hard to kick, and I understand that, having kicked it myself. But nobody wants to be around a smoker. It's just time for people to realize that and stop trying to defend these rights. It stinks up the whole place, and if you're around it it stinks you up. It's bad for everybody who comes into contact with it.
Click to expand...

This is true. Second had smoke is an infringement on the rights of other people. Hardly anybody wants to be around it.

I've got no problem if they want to go outside, if there's a well ventilated patio set aside for smoking.
 
Thorn said:
Okay, Gary Busey, you must be right. :p

You have touched on something that annoys the crap out of me, though and that's the airbag law. Wrong thread to get into that, but it's an example of government stepping in for all the wrong reasons and imposing a horrendously expensive, unjustified requirement on everyone, whether they want it or not.
Click to expand...

If I ever get a car new enough to have one of those things, it's getting disconnected before I ever drive it.

You ever seen somebody after they get smacked with one of those things, for their own protection? A cousin of mine had one go off on him. Alot of us thought maybe he had it coming on account of his high-fallutin ways. He was the only one in my family to become a professional. That's right, he was a train conducter and we never heard the end of it from our mom. "Why can't you be more like Peggy's son, he's a train conducter" Ohhhh, a train conducter! That's all me and my brothers heard. But I disent. The point is, after he was at his big job for a while, he went and bought some fancy car with one of them in it. Course train conducter or not, he never did give up the drinking, so one night, coming home from the bar, he smacks right head on into a parked dump trunk, and WHAM, that fucking airbag hits him full on.

Well, he ain't conducting trains no more as you might have guessed. Another big shot come to a bad end. Thanks to libs and their safety laws.
 
Cypress said:
This is true. Second had smoke is an infringement on the rights of other people. Hardly anybody wants to be around it.

I've got no problem if they want to go outside, if there's a well ventilated patio set aside for smoking.
Click to expand...

I let friends smoke in my apartment sometimes, to tell you the truth. Close ones, because I feel bad. But I don't like it and the smell really lingers.
 
Never have smoked. I think its gross and foolish. I think it should be a crime to smoke around children.

However if a person wishes to open an establishment that caters to smokers they have that right. Smokers like to be around one another anyway. I'm not usually bothered by smoke if there's a non smoking section. To me that is good enough.

If the sections are separted right that should be all we need. An outright ban is heavyhanded.
 
But it is politically unpopular at this time , that is why it is getting banned. Wussy politicos tackling isslues like this instead of the difficult ones.
 
I think its a perfectly legitmate issue for local government USC. Its not like they're doing foreign policy, or anything like that. Public health and safety is a legitimate concern, and the medical evidence on second hand smoke is conclusive.
 
Yeah, now if our local govt would be as concerned about our children having enough books in school, instead of just wanting to build new schools....
 
As I posted about a month ago why are we not banning autos and such since the exhaust has been shown to stunt childrens lungs in high traffic areas ?
Or making autos have air filtration systems to prevent damage to our childrens lungs from exhaust fumes ?
 
"you're doing the same thing IHG did: mixing preventable risk and non-preventable risk together.

Stuntmen is a high skill and high risk occupation. Not all risk can, or should, be eliminated. Nonetheless, the stuntman union and governments do have safety regulations to mitigate preventable risk to human and animal performers."

Correct. The other difference is that stuntmen, miners etc... CHOOSE to work in the professions that they do. The risk they take is to themselves. Smoking creates a risk not only to the smoker, but to those around the smoker. A big difference.
 
Superfreak said:
"you're doing the same thing IHG did: mixing preventable risk and non-preventable risk together.

Stuntmen is a high skill and high risk occupation. Not all risk can, or should, be eliminated. Nonetheless, the stuntman union and governments do have safety regulations to mitigate preventable risk to human and animal performers."

Correct. The other difference is that stuntmen, miners etc... CHOOSE to work in the professions that they do. The risk they take is to themselves. Smoking creates a risk not only to the smoker, but to those around the smoker. A big difference.
Click to expand...

so does all sources of air polloution. But we ask for voluntary reductions in industrial polloution....and legalislate no smoking...
 
"How bout this Cypress should arena workers be protected by making it illegal to play music above a certain volume at a concert? This is preventable risk right?"

Having worked in that environment, I can tell you, they provide ear protection.
 
Having worked in that environment, I can tell you, they provide ear protection.
//
And bars can provide ventillated smoking zones....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top