www.loopzorbital.com

i heard the smoking ban was a hoax?

hehe.. ok, but in holland you can't smoke anywhere but in a pub nowadays.

not that i mind... as a non smoker. in fact, going out would be more fun without red eyes and dry throath the next day.

ooh interesting. Ricky does the smoking ban apply to Northern Ireland too? And would it be in places like hotel rooms as well?(going to Belfast for a wedding with my chain-smoking bf in tow...)

I'm a non-smoker, and I hate smoke. I have given up on the majority of pubs, the reason being their deadly whiff. I think smoking is something analogous to a social cancer, frankly.

Stilll, I'm not gonna turn into a fascist because of that: I think the government has no place in people's private affairs. Nobody is forced to allow smoking in their pubs and clubs. Nobody owns a pub except the OWNER - got that? Not the customer, not the government.

I think if somebody wants to set up an enterprise of drinking and socializing, it is completely up to the owner to set the rules.
Anything but pedophilia should be within the realm of possibility. I.e. if smoking is not banned BY DEFINITION, it should not be banned in particular places, just because some twat MP wants to claim public ownership to someone's property.

Why not ban drinking while we're at it -
oh I forgot, they're going down that road too. At least bans affecting publicly owned areas are reasonable (the government owns them, so they set the rules), but bans expanding into people's private affairs are not (people own things, government sets the rules for them???).

Yay for healthy living, nay for government tyranny.

Kansler wrote: Stilll, I'm not gonna turn into a fascist because of that: I think the government has no place in people's private affairs. Nobody is forced to allow smoking in their pubs and clubs. Nobody owns a pub except the OWNER - got that? Not the customer, not the government.

yeah i know what you are saying but this is a health issue. They are doing this to reduce unwanted exposure to smoke. I'm sure if the owner of a pub etc had full rights and no intervention from a government ruling then i'm sure smoking tobacco is not the only thing the OWNER would allow There has to be rules and the change is for a valid reason. To my knowledge its not money motivated like most government changes.

Dollydagger wrote:ooh interesting. Ricky does the smoking ban apply to Northern Ireland too? And would it be in places like hotel rooms as well?(going to Belfast for a wedding with my chain-smoking bf in tow...)

Dolly, no it doesn't apply to Northern Ireland so anyone can smoke to their hearts (or lungs) content.

Kansler: Do you not think that you have to protect the health of the people who work there too. Maybe people who cant get jobs elsewhere???

RickySteamBoat wrote:

Dollydagger wrote:ooh interesting. Ricky does the smoking ban apply to Northern Ireland too? And would it be in places like hotel rooms as well?(going to Belfast for a wedding with my chain-smoking bf in tow...)

Dolly, no it doesn't apply to Northern Ireland so anyone can smoke to their hearts (or lungs) content.

Kansler: Do you not think that you have to protect the health of the people who work there too. Maybe people who cant get jobs elsewhere???

Dolly, 'Norn Iron' is still a separate jurisdiction to here, despite what Paisley and the DUP fear and what Adams and Sinn Féin want

But I thought the legislation referred to the UK rather that GB so what happens in GB will happen up there too

On the topic itself, as a non-drinker I don't go to pubs that much and what I want to smoke had to be smoked outside anyway. It has actually made it easier for me 'coz I now don't look quite so conspicuous smoking outside and I don't feel like quite such a lemon:D

i think its shit

Being a 7-week old non-smoker, I might be biased, but I think it's a good thing.

I don't think we should alienate smokers, and I hope that the current trend for smoking bans isn't a precursor to banning smoking altogether, but I do believe that people's right to work in a smoke-free environment is more important than the right to smoke wherever you like.

I don't believe my opinion has changed since I stopped smoking...

"Smoking in all public places like pubs, cinemas, offices, factories, public transport and so on will be banned"

So all that really affects is pubs - when was the last time anyone smoked in a cinema, office, factory or on a bus or train???

Rich

Loopz: I think people shouldn't take pain medication, or SSRIs, except in the rarest of cases, but I'm not going to outlaw pain medication or Prozac. I'll just stay away from them. It's not about what this person or that person would like to see. If you don't like them, go somewhere else. If you like green carpets, why deny your neighbour the right to have a yellow carpet? I don't need the government banning smoking: I know it's terrible for me.

Also, despite the name, "a pub" is not "public" area. A street is public. A house is not. The act admits as much, and that's what makes it gestapo-like.

"Do you not think that you have to protect the health of the people who work there too. Maybe people who cant get jobs elsewhere???"

Well, no. Many jobs are dangerous: like driving a truck, or being any sort of social worker, or doing construction work --- in fact most work is dangerous. Being a waiter is way down the list. That's part of the pay, the danger extra. As long as you know the risks, you should be paid to do whatever you're willing to do. If some people enjoy cancerous fumes, and if you want to wait for these people for money, then I'm not going to say no to you. Happily there are plenty of smoke-free places for people to go to, and more every day as people wake up. That's because of education, not beating people around with a stick.

Secondly, no one is forced to work in a place they don't like. Imagine a situation: My grandaunt might have a flatululence problem. This might require for me to hire an assistant, whose work would now center around someone's rear end. This is undoubtedly odorous. But what are you going to do? Ban farting in people's homes, because the imaginary "flatulence nurse" would theoretically "have no choice" but to be around farts? I don't think so. There is no quota for flatulence nurses, and they have no inherent right to a flatulence-free work environment. To quote N.Reagan: "just say no". If somebody wants to suck your dick for money, you can just say no. Or yes.

Noboby is forced in any job - or if they are, they should stick it to The Man, big time. In fact, sticking it to The Man is advisable on all occasions...

(I know many people are not libertarians, but so be it.)

2007 for you guys - 26th of March for Scotland....

Stopped smoking five months ago so doesn't really bother me, and to be honest wouldn't even if I did smoke.

I've mixed feelings about this and like a lot of legislation there are arguments for and against.

I'd have preferred that pubs had a choice - smoking or non smoking. There's a pub in the village which has gone non-smoking, just means as a smoker they've lost my trade.

But on the plus side when all boozers are smoke free it will mean that I smoke less, and all though I love the filthy dirty habit, this can only be a good thing.

Remember though, if everyone gives up smoking you'll all be working til 70 to fund health care and pensions.

Kansler wrote:Loopz: I think people shouldn't take pain medication, or SSRIs, except in the rarest of cases, but I'm not going to outlaw pain medication or Prozac. I'll just stay away from them. It's not about what this person or that person would like to see. If you don't like them, go somewhere else. If you like green carpets, why deny your neighbour the right to have a yellow carpet? I don't need the government banning smoking: I know it's terrible for me.

Also, despite the name, "a pub" is not "public" area. A street is public. A house is not. The act admits as much, and that's what makes it gestapo-like.

I think you didnt quite understand what i was saying.

If there was no laws on what can and cannot take place in a PUBLIC place and it was left up to the owner then we would have some serious issues. The amount of coke i see snorted in toilets in various places is totally mad. I wouldnt want to see an increase in that for a starter and it would increase after all they are the owners and they shouldnt adhere to any rules of the land

As for the smoking. Its not just about smokers or non-smokers who know whether they want to smoke or not. There are children who are easily influenced or easily affected by these environments. I have no idea about your background and really its not important, but if you had a child would you want the freedom to take him/her to where you wanted to ...ie: a public place or should they miss out going places because its filled with smoke ? I'm not refering to just Pubs here.

How about if you dont like the idea that you are not allowed to smoke somewhere then boycott it and go elsewhere. Its just going to be another ruling that will become active and all this fuss will be forgotten withini a year. People hate change and cant handle change.

btw...the word Pub is short for Public House. Nuff said.

and forgive me...does passive fart smelling cause cancer or other fatal illnesses ? i know a few people who probably should be tested

Loopz: it's debatable whether farts cause cancer, but plenty of fumes in various industries do - like the coal, the nuclear, the wood industries etc... Like I said, all works have their risks. Be wary, I'll say. As for cocaine in the bathrooms, it's mostly a problem of prohibition, amplifying the risks by inviting the black market in.

Honestly, people get confused about the word "public." And you didn't notice: I did say "despite the name, "pub" is not a public area", by which I implied that just because I were to call my house an Indian restaurant, it doesn't mean the Indian government has any say in my home! It's just a name, see. Likewise, a "public" meeting-place is often held at a private place, just like in the U.K. a "public school" is a private school. If by public you mean public ownership and public control, then a pub is clearly not public. Or does the government own these places? Maybe they should, but for now they don't.

These MPs are really confused, if they think restaurants are government property just because plenty of people are allowed there by the owner. If I have a huge party and plenty of kids are allowed in, I'm not going to throw away my bong just because some twats are bringing their kids in for second-hand ganja fumes. I'll just throw away the kids. And no, my house is not "public" just because there are people in there. People don't have a right to a risk-free my home.

Well I've said what I think. I appreciate there are other opinions.

I think most of us, me included, agree that we'd be better off without all this smoke. I just believe in self-education.

Kansler wrote:Loopz: it's debatable whether farts cause cancer, but plenty of fumes in various industries do - like the coal, the nuclear, the wood industries etc... Like I said, all works have their risks. Be wary, I'll say. As for cocaine in the bathrooms, it's mostly a problem of prohibition, amplifying the risks by inviting the black market in.

haha. sorry but your farts comment still cracks me up. Even if farts caused cancer, i'm sure there are less people farting than smoking. Besides until your theory is proven in the medical world, i dont think its as important as doing something about a habit that IS a killer for everyone. There are also government rulings about fumes from industrial factorys and have been for many years (hence why i no longer live next to the so called "Black Country"). Cocaine is just one example of how slack OWNERS will be to allow things like that to take place. Dont give them any more control ffs.

Kansler wrote:Honestly, people get confused about the word "public." And you didn't notice: I did say "despite the name, "pub" is not a public area", by which I implied that just because I were to call my house an Indian restaurant, it doesn't mean the Indian government has any say in my home! It's just a name, see. Likewise, a "public" meeting-place is often held at a private place, just like in the U.K. a "public school" is a private school. If by public you mean public ownership and public control, then a pub is clearly not public. Or does the government own these places? Maybe they should, but for now they don't.

I think we can all jumble up our words and make something round look square but even a child can see through it. Smoking kills and we all know that. Public areas contain members of the public. Reduce smoking in public areas = less disease / death. Its not rocket science. Believe me ... anyone who knows me knows i dont have the time of day for the majority of MPs or the government but sometimes even i have to admit that you have to have people controlling what goes on in this country and within certain places. I dont want this country to turn into *insert your country of your choice* where the economy IS truely f*cked up and the so called freedom-of-speech-free-the-country-blah-blah do what they want to make the place even more out of control. Yes the government p*ss me off with some of their ways but they have made a life saving change in my eyes.

Kansler wrote:These MPs are really confused, if they think restaurants are government property just because plenty of people are allowed there by the owner. If I have a huge party and plenty of kids are allowed in, I'm not going to throw away my bong just because some twats are bringing their kids in for second-hand ganja fumes. I'll just throw away the kids. And no, my house is not "public" just because there are people in there. People don't have a right to a risk-free my home.

nice! so i'm a twat then Nah i wouldnt take any kids to anywhere where people are smoking ganja. Any of my mates who do indulge in illegal drug activities have too much respect for other people anyway. They wouldnt indulge if children are visiting. Anyway Kansler... no one is talking about your house. Unless your house is a restuarant and in that case you would have to have a license (and with a license you have certain laws....including ganja smoking ). If you dont like it then you go to *insert your country of your choice* where you can do what you want

Well I've said what I think. I appreciate there are other opinions.

Kansler wrote:I think most of us, me included, agree that we'd be better off without all this smoke. I just believe in self-education.

Yeah and also if people just didnt think of themselves. Think of others. Sounds like a view from a x-smoker or a non-smoker...how ironic!

I'm sure there are less people farting than smoking

You know that's not true: It's 100% vs. some 40%...

I believe what this law will do is increase death, if that is your concern. People will break the rules, and organized crime enters the picture.

Cocaine is not tobacco: it's illegal. And has that stopped its use? Maybe you want smoking to be illegal too? No wait, you do - if only in certain places. I, on the contrary, would keep smoking legal AND legalize cocaine and all the other nasty things. After all, hamburgers are legal (and deadly). Aspartame is legal (and poisonous). Loud headphone music is legal (and bad for your ears). Alcohol is legal (and very, very bad for you). So I'll just recap my position: Unless you want arbitrary choices as to what bad stuff is allowed and not, you have to keep everything legal. If you were really serious about preventing people from dying, you would not allow them to leave the four walls. It's dangerous out there. In fact, being born is a sure way to get killed.

Of course, I'll never touch cigarettes or cocaine. But not because of their legality, but because they are ridiculous. So is alcohol, in my view. I don't drink alcohol either, nor do other drugs. Pubs are ridiculous institutions in the first place, serving alcohol. I would not take kids to places where things like alcohol or cigarettes or strippers are around. Adults only, and only those adults who want to. There is room in one town for both McDonalds and XXX Grannies.

Of course I don't believe in restaurant licensing either, but that's another story. Why turn tittie bars into Disneyland?

You might wonder why I care, since I don't live in the U.K., nor do I smoke... I wonder the same thing, so I'll shut up now. Way Out