Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 21 2012, 07:14 PM

Not strictly Newbury related but it's more news than it is a rant so...

What are peoples thoughts on this? For it, against it? I heard about it on the local radio station news today.

I have a very elaborate opinion on the subject, but an NDA between myself and the lawyers of a once famous singer means I mustn't Cher (if you see what I did there)

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2012, 07:27 PM

It doesn't affect me from a smoking point of view, but it is a nuisance having to walk outside to continue the conversation!

Posted by: Strafin Feb 21 2012, 07:31 PM

I think smoking should be banned in all public places. It's disgusting, smelly, messy and down right anti social.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 21 2012, 11:35 PM

Consumption of drugs should be a personal choice - not something promoted by society and not forced on other people (such as through obvious consumption in a public area).

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 21 2012, 11:59 PM

What about non-consumption? What conduct should not be 'personal choice'?

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 12:11 AM

Now those are the real debating points.

Posted by: Jayjay Feb 22 2012, 10:19 AM

I am with the landlady who has banned all non smokers from the pub garden.

Posted by: desres123 Feb 22 2012, 10:55 AM

I reckon its the nanny state going to far. Fair enough banning smoking inside public places but banning smoking outside is a joke. If you dont like smokers then dont stand by a smoker if he/she is smoking outside.

Maybe they should ban alcohol from pubs as thats a drug also

Posted by: Scott Donnelly Feb 22 2012, 10:58 AM

I think I heard they have banned smoking from some public parks in the states?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 22 2012, 10:59 AM

Smoking is allegedly banned at railway stations but many seem to ignore.
Do your views apply there also, i.e. don't stand by them?
Do you have a choice if waiting for a train?

Posted by: desres123 Feb 22 2012, 11:09 AM

Depends on what time of day if the station was busy then it reasonable for a smoker not to smoke but if station was empty then if you dont like the smoke then you can move further down the platform. No different to walking down Northbrook street same air

Posted by: massifheed Feb 22 2012, 11:23 AM

But what if someone who is smoking comes and stands near to you. Should it always be down to the non-smoker to get out of the smoker's way?

Posted by: desres123 Feb 22 2012, 11:28 AM

I am a smoker myself and if i was smoking already then it would be reasonable for the non smoker to move away. If i had just lit one up then it would be reasonable for me to move away.

I like to add I dont smoke in non smoking areas.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 22 2012, 04:51 PM

I agree with the smoking ban in buildings and enclosed areas to where others have access, but in public open spaces? No.

Smoking is now banned at stations too, no problem with that either, but I think that the exhaust pollutants of the diesel trains are potentially more injurious to health than someone having a crafty fag somewhere on the platform.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 22 2012, 05:35 PM

Perhaps the definition should be to allow consumption of drugs where anybody around would be in full consent. i.e. stations are unlikely cos people hate going to work stinking of smoke; but private clubs that are pro-dugs could be labeled as such. There would have to be exclusions such as children, vulnerable, and health etc as well as input from the community.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 22 2012, 05:40 PM

I don't care to much about the health side - it's the stink that you smokers all carry round, and the mess you make. Plus if I walk through your smoke I then stink as well.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 22 2012, 07:19 PM

A bit of a crude generalisation and incorrectly personalised, I think.

I know some people who smoke, and if I was not at a social event in their own garden, then I would not know they indulged.

The stench and uncivil behaviour I notice in public areas (and especially on evening trains) is most often caused by excessive alcohol consumption. Most of the litter I see is from fast food consumption.

If an inconsiderate smoker (or anyone else for that matter) drops litter or makes your clothes smell, then you should pick them up on their behaviour.

I have challenged a guy who started smoking on a train, and when he stood up and towered over me I began to wish I hadn’t. But (to his credit and my good fortune) he and cigarette cleared off out of the compartment.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 22 2012, 08:03 PM

WOW! Brave man (woman??)

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 22 2012, 09:08 PM

Did poo come out?

Often why it's better to complain on a forum rather than get your booty kicked in RL.

Posted by: x2lls Feb 22 2012, 09:22 PM

So how slow do you walk to accumulate a stink?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 22 2012, 10:05 PM

Please clarify what you mean....... 'pro-drug private clubs'? 'Allow consumption of drugs where anyone around would be in full consent'?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2012, 12:22 AM

It takes about five seconds. I notice it on my staff, obviously the ones who smoke smell anyway, but he ones who pop out sometimes at the same time pick it up really easily. Not personal, all smokers smell. On the other hand they pay a lot of tax.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 01:40 AM

We have examples of these already with alcohol being served in places where people choose to consume it and it's not acceptable to consume it on the streets or on the train.

By making most places smoke free we are changing the way society looks on drugs - it's no longer something generally promoted by society but people are still legally allowed to consume the drug. It's a good compromise that I would extend slightly by allowing single drug private clubs (consenting clubs). I would also place further safeguards than there are today, for example, bar it from any where near children (even at home), the vulnerable etc.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 09:10 AM

So why not say 'smoking clubs'?
I do not disagree nicotine is a drug of sorts, but you will confuse simple readers by firing a howitzer and implying 'Drug Clubs' etc......... Even the Dutch are regretting their Coffee Shop legislation.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 09:25 AM

Focus on a single drug source like smoking promotes a very emotional response - love or hate, there is little compromise. Thinking of this as a generic drug issue helps me to take a pragmatic view and to look to see if there is a common thread and approach that can be used with each of our drug consuming practices.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 23 2012, 10:55 AM

No "of sorts" about it. Many studies have shown that it's more addictive than heroin.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 23 2012, 11:09 AM

I laughed when my farther in law said he was going for a smoke. I asked why, does he need to get high, and his response was, no I need to smoke to stay normal. Is that the response of anyone other than an addict?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 03:42 PM

I agree, but I would prefer a distinction between smoking and the drugs we colloquially talk about. Being 'anti-smoking' creates a different response to being anti-drugs. That from one who does know just a bit about the subject......

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Feb 23 2012, 04:28 PM

Cars and Lorries are smelly and pollute. Lets ban them.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 04:47 PM

Smoking has become as antisocial a drink driving, it costs society billions in lost production as well as health care every year, yet, I do feel that if someone wishes to purue the habit and is willing to do so insuch a manner as not to discomfort others then I have to say, why not ? Cancer and poverty wil stamp it out in the end, I can wait.

Achohol is a more perfidious and destructive evil in my opinion anyway.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 23 2012, 04:50 PM

Erm, oh nothing.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 04:51 PM

ROFLMAO

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 23 2012, 04:54 PM

Had it been a full stop I too would have quivered an eyebrow. However, it was a comma and the remainder of the sentence made clear he was talking about employees/minions.......
I am just amazed they are allowed away from the looms at all, let alone for a smoke. Especially as children should not be smoking at all....

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2012, 06:46 PM

The ones who smoke take an hours more break than the ones who don't every day, so son't worry about them too much. And they (as all smokers do) claim that they only pop out for a minute, don't take other breaks, and work better when they have had a fag. Someone mentioned a smokers only pub earlier in the thread, I am all for segregation, if there was a place for smokers only, I would applaud it, but how many people would actually stick to it?

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 08:48 PM

Can I stick my head above the parapet and say I actually preffered the smell of pubs when there was smoking, seemed appropriate somehow, now all I smell is greasy food stale beer and sweat, not nice and I keep telling the wife she should smarten herself up as well.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 23 2012, 08:52 PM

Farts too.

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 23 2012, 08:56 PM

No, she doesn't !

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 24 2012, 05:49 PM

Brilliant. Thank you for making me laugh so much.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 26 2012, 01:08 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106269/Rocklin-California-town-ban-smoking-ANYWHERE-outside-backyard.html

These guys have got the right idea....

Posted by: Jayjay Feb 27 2012, 05:19 PM

So California wants to ban smoking outdoors. The same American state that, when it went to the polls, 56% of citizens voted for legalising drugs. You couldn't make it up.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 27 2012, 09:02 PM

I don't really see the correlation?

Posted by: Jayjay Feb 28 2012, 09:09 AM

They object to the neighbours smoking outside in their own garden for health reasons but 56% are happy to legalise drugs and live next door to somebody who takes drugs. Also California has the worst air pollution in the US.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 28 2012, 09:42 AM

I have sat on a hotel balcony in California and noticed the thick, yellow smog that sits over the LA Basin in the late afternoon. I took some photos but they don't show it too clearly.

And they are worried about smelling their neighbour's cigarette smoke?

In the same hotel, the inside bar was pretty empty in the evenings, the adjacent open air "atrium" was packed with smokers and non-smokers drinking together.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 28 2012, 09:56 AM

A stranger smokes while drinking near you = OH MY GOD NO STOP IT YOU BUMDER
A friend that smokes while drinking near you = AH NO PROBLEM BUDDY PUFF YOUR CHUFF AWAY.

???

Posted by: JeffG Feb 28 2012, 10:56 AM

I remember years ago driving the length of the Pomona Freeway towards LA. Blue sky all around except for a dense black cloud on the horizon directly ahead. Probably all those smokers.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 28 2012, 12:42 PM

It used to look like that going to London.

Posted by: Nothing Much Feb 28 2012, 01:16 PM

"Aw Gwon", Mr Capp.

Are we talking "Passport to Pimlico" or the "ladykillers"?
But,it must have been rough in those days.
These days it is the iconic "Black Cab" diesel that will be the next to go.

The line outside St Pancras stretches for 2 miles. In the winter engines run
to keep warm.
ce

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 28 2012, 05:46 PM

Or the smoke from all those gun barrels.

You make me nostalgic. A sight to behold is Vegas appearing on the horizon as your Greyhound bus thunders across the desert in the early evening (driven by a guy who reckons his name is Elvis). Awesome.

Rgds

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2012, 08:11 PM

I love Vegas. Amazing place.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2012, 08:17 PM

I still don't see the correlation between people polluting the air, and inflicting their smoke onto other people, and someone ingesting substances in their own home. Also when did 56% of them, vote to legalise drugs?

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 28 2012, 09:24 PM

Er, people smoking in their own back yard are "ingesting substances in their own home".

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2012, 09:56 PM

But the smoke doesn't stay where it is does it? That's the point, smoking in your house is fine, nobody else is affected, but when you are outside doing it, it affects everyone around you as well.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 28 2012, 10:22 PM

I see. So you are now saying smoking in a confined environment is ok, but smoking in the open air is bad?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2012, 10:31 PM

I am saying that if you want to smoke, do it in your own home, that way nobody can claim that you are affecting them. If you smoke outside, you will annoy other people.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2012, 10:33 PM

And also that I support a ban on smoking in all public places, but I do think restaurants and clubs etc, should be able to define their own smoking policies, so long as they are kept inside. That way it is up to the consumer whether they go in then or not.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 28 2012, 10:57 PM

You seem to be a little confused on this issue. You now support an outright ban but with certain exceptions?

Posted by: x2lls Feb 28 2012, 10:57 PM

Are you assuming that air doesn't pass 'through' a dwelling? Where does it go?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 28 2012, 11:34 PM

I'll try and make it simple, smoking in public places affects everyone in those places right? Smoking in a private dwelling, or place of business only affects those people in that building at that time. still with me? So I support banning smoking in places where people are not protected, ie open spaces, parks etc. But in order to maintain some balance and some sense of individual liberty, smoking away from the public, in confined areas, will not affect people unless they choose to go into those places, therefore I think that if people in this day and age really are stupid enough to carry on smoking, then they should have some provision to do so. If a pub for example allows indoor smoking, then I wouldn't go in, but I am sure there are people who would.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 29 2012, 01:46 AM

I'm sure you're right - the trouble is that some who go in will be non-smokers who reluctantly take the risk because they want to be with their mates. Or employees who would rather work in a smoke filled room than not work at all. This is why smoking is banned in public indoor spaces like pubs. As far as I'm concerned that is as far as they need to go - banning smoking outdoors seems OTT to me.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 29 2012, 01:46 AM

I'm sure you're right - the trouble is that some who go in will be non-smokers who reluctantly take the risk because they want to be with their mates. Or employees who would rather work in a smoke filled room than not work at all. This is why smoking is banned in public indoor spaces like pubs. As far as I'm concerned that is as far as they need to go - banning smoking outdoors seems OTT to me.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 29 2012, 09:58 AM

I will try and not be so patronising.

Banning smoking in outdoor public places and people's back gardens (as you have also suggested) is completely unenforceable.

A chap having a cigarette whilst he walks his dog down a country lane is smoking in a public place (and open space) and, according to you, should be prosecuted.

And your definition of places where your new ban would be enforced is..... "ie open spaces, parks etc". But not in some pubs it seems, except for the garden...

I support the smoking ban as it stands; I also support common sense and a little tolerance.

Posted by: Jayjay Feb 29 2012, 10:27 AM

Not sure if you are trying a wind up, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. Crack cocaine and cannabis is smoked. 56% of California voters want to legalise drugs whilst banning smoking. Do you see the correlation now?

Suggest you look up the vote on the internet - haven't got time to do your homework for you.

Posted by: desres123 Feb 29 2012, 11:52 AM

Still think it is nanny state going to far after all its outside plenty of air to dilute the smoke by the time it gets to you and if not plenty of space to move away or smoker to move away whoever was in that space first. I am pretty sure vehicles cause more pollution than someone having a smoke. If you are still unhappy you can wear a gas mask

Posted by: Jayjay Feb 29 2012, 12:32 PM

This would only work if you never went out of the house, opened a window, put an extractor fan on. Can't remember why, but in science class we put smoke in a bottle and put the top on. The smoke stayed in the bottle until you took the top off.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 29 2012, 01:05 PM

Do farts work in the same way? I always get a bit icky when someone burps or farts because I always imagine I am breathing their digested food/poopies.

Posted by: desres123 Feb 29 2012, 01:10 PM

now farts and belches should be banned in public places and only can be done in the privacy of your home

Posted by: Blake Feb 29 2012, 02:47 PM

I am wholly opposed to smoking in any form unless those who do it choose to do it in their own homes and away from others.

I would like to see smoking taxed out of existence. Why not shift more of the other taxes all on tobacco. If cigarettes were £30 a box, we'd soon have no smokers at all.

Posted by: Vodabury Feb 29 2012, 03:20 PM

Unfortunately not. You would have industrial-scale smuggling and an even bigger black market than there is already. It would be a lottery style win for organised crime!

Research involving examination of discarded packets at Premiership football grounds has shown that 1/3 of cigarettes smoked are non-UK duty paid as it is.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 29 2012, 03:26 PM

Multicultural* market.
Don't be racist.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 29 2012, 05:45 PM

Me too!


Yeah there's nothing on the internet about it, you can't just bandy figures around without any substance or back up and expect people to believe it. Amphetamines aren't smoked, nor is LSD. Heroin is generally injected, MDMA is taken in pill form, cocaine is snorted. So your point about smoking and taking drugs being the same doesn't work in this instance.



Yay! Some support, I'm not the only one!

Posted by: Jayjay Feb 29 2012, 06:02 PM

I do not lie or make things up, nor do I accuse people of doing the same because I cant be bothered to check my facts. It was widely talked about on world news, US news and made the daily papers here. Just one of the many links on the net http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/21/new-poll-56-of-california-voters-want-to-legalize-marijuana/

Posted by: Strafin Feb 29 2012, 06:30 PM

That's a poll about marijuana.

You said "Crack cocaine and cannabis is smoked. 56% of California voters want to legalise drugs whilst banning smoking. Do you see the correlation now?"

I did not say you were making stuff up but you are not talking "facts" either.If you are going to spout figures, you need to cite a source that can be checked so that I can do my home work as you put it.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 29 2012, 06:34 PM

I live next door to business, they put in a new exit which is right next to my kitchen window and front door. All the smokers from there now open the door and stand outside, blowing smoke directly into my kitchen. They are not breaking any laws, and despite several polite requests from me and my wife, it still happens. Also last week one very unpolite request which worked for about three days. The smoking ban currently doesn't cover it, and the HSE are not interested. I don't see why I should put up with it. Perhaps that is why I am extra grumpy on this subject.

Posted by: desres123 Feb 29 2012, 09:13 PM

well i can understand where you coming from on that side of things and i would like to think the business owners would take action to prevent smokers from smoking there. I still reckon banning smoking from all outside public places is one step to far

Posted by: desres123 Feb 29 2012, 09:16 PM

way to go yeah sounds avery good idea lets just give the black market a cash boost and then government will loose more money oh well they will just put another 50p on fuel tax to compensate

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 29 2012, 09:45 PM

Smokers haven't always been very considerate in imposing their habit on others, but it seems extreme to me to talk about banning smoking generally in public places.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 29 2012, 10:16 PM

Perhaps, rather than get rid of cigarettes we should get rid of the smokers? Hanging may be a bit strong, but we could always transport them to Swindon?

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 1 2012, 09:06 AM

If this had been your first post here then you would have made where you are coming from on this much clearer.

I empathise with your situation, it would drive me mad to have people gathered outside of my window/door smoking.

You do not say whether these people congregate on the public highway or on private land. If a polite letter to a director of the business does not do the trick, then you might want to see if there is a landlord you can trace and contact over the bevaviour of their tenant.

There is some material on "staff smoking outside" on the FSB website, but the advice is of course more aimed at the business owner, not a suffering neighbour.

I hope you get it sorted.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 1 2012, 09:14 AM

Ha ha ha
Swindon isn't too bad. Yeah, it's rough and someone called Daz or Gary will probably mug you for "breathing in the wrong way init". Plus there are no speed cameras.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 1 2012, 09:19 AM

Talking of which and changing the subject slightly..................
is spitting in public illegal?
So many disgusting individuals do it nowadays and I find the whole spectacle absolutely revolting as well as being unhygienic.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 1 2012, 09:34 AM

No it's not illegal and I see no problem if you have a reason for it and it's directed into the very corner of an alley or grassy area or something. If you get a fly in your mouth you're not going to go "hmm this is quite a delicacy actually the flavour of grass and poo on my tongue..."

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 1 2012, 09:54 AM

Yes but it's not is it?
It's done right on the pavement or platform where I am about to walk!!
AND it's mostly done, not through necessity, but through sheer bad manners.

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 1 2012, 09:56 AM

I don't know where it's done. As much as I want to be a part of your life I think attaching a camera and watching your moves like Jagger is probably borderline creepy.
Best advice I can give you is to treat it like dog poo and walk around if, if it bothers you. Do you wear flip flops?

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 1 2012, 10:13 AM

Isn't it time you were in school?

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 1 2012, 10:56 AM

Ah yes, what a unique rhetoric.

I had an OK time at school. I much preferred when I was going to school then when I am working. I was picked on a lot in Years 8-10 because I am, let's face it, quite strange. But when I was in Year 11, everyone sort of settled down and got on and a lot of the people that thought I was "a gay nobhead" realised I was actually pretty cool and in fact neither gay nor a nobhead (or any combination of the two). It's a shame though when I left school, I lost contact to some very good friends. I refuse to get a BookTube or a MyFace so unfortunately I have to wait until I bump into them in Sainsburys. Sort of like when I made eye contact with the last girl I was involved with the other day. Relatively awkward.

Although the teachers at school didn't get me, because I didn't fit into their box. I wasn't a "yes miss" sort of kid, I was more imaginative so I would do things my own way...often getting the same results (certainly no worse) than other pupils but because I didn't do it their way... And the HeadTeacher would be quite violent and unfair. Music/ipods at lunch time? Oh no, confiscated. He threw my house Diary at me once, how dare he abuse a 12 year old like that. All because I got 2 "3's" for effort (Although it was not effort, it was behaviour, I put effort in the work but was the "class clown", although quite a good one, many people laughed.

One time I was texting in class and my phone was confiscated. Fair enough. Was told to collect it at 3:30 from the Deputy Head of my House (Mrs something-or-other, I hated her, she spoke like one of those people on a sex line (not that I'd know ) and was very pretentious. ANNEHHWAY, I went at 3:30 as instructed only to find the betch had GONE HOME and taken MY PHONE with her. I was not happy at all and properly layed into her the next morning..."Who are you to take my personal property home, you have a right to confiscate items during the day but to fail to return them is classed as theft...what if I was out and I got injured or a friend ran infront of a bus (we'd play chicken from time to time), how could I call for help? Oh I couldn't and we'd be dying slowly in the street until an old lady found us...how would you like that on your conscience?" - Relatively bemused she apologised for taking my phone home and returned it to me.

Posted by: Vodabury Mar 1 2012, 07:05 PM

So you and friends would "play chicken" with a bus, and if someone got struck and injured, you feel the liability would rest with the teacher who had earlier confiscated your phone?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 1 2012, 07:14 PM

I think if I were his teacher, I'd have simply said that he should makes sure he doesn't get caught using his phone in lesson time again!

Posted by: xjay1337 Mar 1 2012, 07:27 PM

I can neither confirm nor deny that it is or isn't probably true.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 1 2012, 09:06 PM

Sure?