Smoking Ban

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 10 Dec 2004 01:22

As of midnight last night we in Aotearoa can no longer smoke in public buildings. Public in the socialist sense, of course.

As much as i detest tobacco this legislation should not have passed.

How can we revel in our alcoholism and look down our noses at other peoples drugs?

Who am i to tell people what poisons they can and can't use on themselves?

If there's a big fuck off sign saying "smoking bar" and you don't like the smell of smoke why can't you fuck off to a smoke free bar.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Dec 2004 02:38

I am torn on this arguement. Ultimatley I think people should be free to take whatever drugs they want - but the dangers should be made clear. It's fairly obvious that most drug deaths are related to the fact that drugs are illegal. If drugs were sold commercially they wouldn't be laced with rat poison etc. - and I'm sure that people would be much more likely to listen to what they're told about drugs if it weren't so obvious that a lot of the stuff we are told is outright lies. There is defintly a move in schools in Australia (or at least Tasmania) - to educate young people on how to do drugs safely - rather than demonising them so that when you see somebody do drugs and they don't die - you don't immediatly conclude that because they mislead you a bit - everything they told you is a lie.

Obviously they should be regulated - I'm not saying I think you should be able to buy crack cocain at the local supermarket or anything like that...

However I also think that whatever drug laws we have - they should be consistant. If the majority of society think that recreational drugs should be banned - all recreational drugs should be banned - we shouldn't make exceptions of tobacco and alcohol just because they are cultural - they are both just as harmful as other drugs and I would say looking at how many people are seriously negatively effected by them in western society - a much bigger problem than illegal drugs.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 10 Dec 2004 03:54

Yeah pretty dumb I reckon. Across the road from where I work there's a pub and tonight it was empty with all the patrons outside smoking...

I feel it's just unnecessary involvement by the government in the lives of business owners. It's just crazy to think you can have a situation where an adult could start a business, other consenting adults who wanted to work for him or her with full knowledge of the health risks of second hand smoke, and consenting adults agreed to buy goods and services from that business also with knowledge that smoke would be present, but none of them would be allowed to because of some paternalistic hand comes in and tries to slap the business down with fines. If everyone is consenting I have no problem. If there is enough demand for non-smoking bars around then they will be created and do well.

I will enjoy smoke not being present most of the time though, but I also enjoy the odd smoke at the pub and I don't bitch and moan about smoke at pubs, if it pissed me off that much I'd go take my business someplace else.

I think that instead of trying to play hardball with business Labour should have reached some compromise, especially with cigar emporiums cause now they're just fucked. Maybe messing with the employment relations legislation and changing bar empoyees contracts somehow to make everyone fully aware of the risks would be a better option.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 10 Dec 2004 13:17

BOOO! This was the topic i most wanted to argue about and you guys all come out and agree with me... bastards.

The implications of this law have hit home down at the "horse and harvest," a local tradesmans type pub. Probably between 75 and 90 percent of patrons smoke as does the sole owner operater. Curly the barman isn't confident that the bar will last much longer than the new year.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 10 Dec 2004 15:10

The same ban has been in effect in CA, while states like NC (where tobacco is grown) such legislation against public smoking does not exist. With all the research about second hand smoke causing just as much, if not more damage to the lungs as first hand smoking, I would have to say I support the ban.

blackcrown · Post by **blackcrown** » 10 Dec 2004 15:26

Yeah, I like the ban too. As a non-smoker I really like being able to go to a bar or club and not getting my clothes all smokey smelling. And it's really nice not hacking up a slug the next morning because of all the second hand smoke I didn't inhale the night before

.

Eric

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 10 Dec 2004 15:27

Yeh but we're crazy here in california

I agree that smoking in public places such as sidewalks or parks say should be banned, but I think smoking in a bar is completlye ok. I mean you go to a bar to partake in drugs...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Dec 2004 17:36

Frenzal wrote:BOOO! This was the topic i most wanted to argue about and you guys all come out and agree with me... bastards.

The implications of this law have hit home down at the "horse and harvest," a local tradesmans type pub. Probably between 75 and 90 percent of patrons smoke as does the sole owner operater. Curly the barman isn't confident that the bar will last much longer than the new year.

Um I think you should re read my post if you think I am agreeing with you.

What I said was basically the laws should be consistant. Either all recreational drugs are banned or none are.

I think it's imporant to note that second hand smoke doesn't create a risk of harm - it actually does you harm. That harm might not be life threatening but it is harm none the less. I think everybody should have the right to work in a safe environment. Show me a country with zero people below the poverty line and zero unemployment and I will concede that allowing smoking in bars and pubs is ok in that country.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 10 Dec 2004 19:26

Jeremy wrote: What I said was basically the laws should be consistant. Either all recreational drugs are banned or none are.

I think the point is that a bartender doesn't have to take a sip of the beer they are about to serve, whereas with cigs they virtually have to puff along with someone even if they don't want to. It's not really a matter of 'is it ok to use recreational drugs?' but more 'is it ok to force them upon others in certain circumstances?'.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Dec 2004 19:37

Yes obviously I understood that and I'm sure you can tell I understood that if you read the paragraph under the line I wrote!!

I was simply taking it a step further and saying I would support a complete ban of tobacco in the name of consistancy in drug laws.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 11 Dec 2004 19:35

I read your first post again and don't see where you're disagreeing with me, Jeremy. Infact this statement "VUltimatley I think people should be free to take whatever drugs they want - but the dangers should be made clear," is in agreement with the libertarian thrust of my post. You call for consistancy in drug laws, something i agree with, but you didn't seem to be calling for complete abstinance from all drugs.

"I think it's imporant to note that second hand smoke doesn't create a risk of harm - it actually does you harm. " - And so does first hand smoke. So, if a bunch of smokers want to sit around in a cigar emporium or a smokey bar who are we to stop them?

You can argue about workers rights if you want, but i pay tax so people can survive on their benefits and not work in smokey bars if they don't smoke/it bothers them. It doesn't bother some people, they want the job, people want to pay them to do the job, and you want to stop them? Why?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 14 Dec 2004 11:09

Smoking bans are dumb, period.

Outlawing tobacco completely would probably bankrupt most state governments.

Politicians are hooked on tobacco taxes. They are hopelessly addicted prostitutes.

Banning a substance is totally useless.

That will just strengthen the cartels, and then we'll have violent shootouts over bad "cig deals". (Because cops need their smoke's also)

-n

\

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 18 Dec 2004 15:58

Prohibition is dumb, period.

james · Post by **james** » 19 Dec 2004 01:39

We don't need to ban smoking, people need to stop smoking, but since that won't happen smoking does need to be banned in more places. Everyone has the right to poison themselves, but not other people.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 19 Dec 2004 09:07

Second hand smoking doesn't effect people as much as most people believe. The numbers are real minimal, something like if you are exposed to cig smoke you have a one in ten chance of getting lung cancer but if you were never exposed to the smoke the chances are like one in twelve.

I hate cigarettes, but I can't sit comfortable with the government telling businesses that nobody can smoke in their establishment just because I could get cancer by being at the same establishment as the dirty dirty smokers.

But then I look at Ottawa, yea theres a city-wide smoking ban and you can't smoke anywhere indoors here, and as a non-smoker, I enjoy going to non-smoke filled bars, but at what cost? The bar owner being told by the government how to run their business. Before the ban, I knew that I'd be boozing it up in a smokey bar, it was expected, did I turn around and not go because of it because I was afraid I'd get lung cancer and die a few years earlier, no, and neither did the majority of the bars target market, so why does the government have to come in and lay down the law?

All this smoke free shit is such a big hoopla, don't smoke cuz it's bad for you, not cuz the government said so. I'm not going to whine because I cant get hammered off my ass in an establishment that has fresh air, that's what patios are for.

And if you go to a bar and feel your rights are being violated because you are being forced to inhale the smoke of other peoples cigarettes you have to rearange your values, if you're at the bar, you know the smoke will be there, so you can either leave, not go in the first place, or..... lobby for removing smoking from all indoor establishments, cause all this fuss, and piss off a bunch of business owners, so that we can drink without coughing.

james · Post by **james** » 19 Dec 2004 12:22

Yo guy I was not talking about de bars man, dat shit is obvious yo so I tought i would leave it out but next tizzle i'll be more specifikizzle.

So if like the government put like a ban on umm kicking old people in the butt would you say dats interfering wit our right to be wild savage idiots? Yes maybe but not all peeps got their 'eads on straight guy, so we needs dees laws to make dem pay. OOOOhhhh we gonna make dem pay, yes I say, make dem PAAAAAAAAAIEEEEEEEEAAAAYYYY.

And anudder ting, de lung cancer is not de life of da party ya know. It really ist not a triple chocolate fudge brownie with flowers to smell on top. You can be one of the 2 extra pizzles that succumb to this disizzle but not me, no sirreee. 1 in 12 makes me sleep bettah at night.

So enuff of dis 'down wit da government' cuz its cool yo, we all know it sucks but if we weren't out of our minds in de first place we wouldn't need regulashan.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 19 Dec 2004 19:28

Fair enough.

Just for the record I wasn't directing my aimless rant at you or anyone specifically, i just felt like bitching.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 19 Dec 2004 21:48

"So if like the government put like a ban on umm kicking old people in the butt "

Kicking an innocent old person in the butt is assault and the government is compelled to intervene.

Smoking in a pub doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't of their own free will chose to submit themselves to the well known dangers.

If i'm smoking in a bar and you sit down next to me it is not the same as me coming over and kciking your ass.

RRW13 · Post by **RRW13** » 19 Dec 2004 22:20

i think the issue of the smoking ban is second hand smoke because second hand is known to be more harmful then first hand smoke and thats why alot of states are pushing this ban as well as some countries. last year ireland has nation wide ban for the ban of smoking because ireland is the leader with the most people with lung cancer.

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 19 Dec 2004 22:29

RRW13 wrote:second hand is known to be more harmful then first hand smoke

i still don't compute that. it just doesn't make sense to me somehow. i really do like the smoking ban. as a smoker my self i don't feel my rights have been violated, i understand both sides of the arguments. the only thing i don't like is having to trudge out into -50 degree blizzards, in my tee shirts because of mandatory coat check, to hack a butt. but in that case, i just don't go out for one. it's better for me as well! hurrah. just as long as they don't stop manufactring them. i'm happy. acctually. i'd be happy if they did. because the price would probably sky rocket, it would be a hassel to get them and i would probably quit with out going back.