The Ban

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • I don’t think anyone is suggesting that smokers have a right to stand right at the bar and blow their smoke over everybody, just that well-ventilated separate areas for smokers and non-smokers would probably be a better and more democratic solution than a blanket ban.

  • Quote from Sthenno

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that smokers have a right to stand right at the bar and blow their smoke over everybody, just that well-ventilated separate areas for smokers and non-smokers would probably be a better and more democratic solution than a blanket ban.




    yesh that is what i think... d'you know what percentage of people smoke btw? because i think that would/should have an effect on whether it is completely banned or not

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • I don’t, and I’m not really sure if it could be measured. There are a lot of people who would call themselves non-smokers but smoke socially.

  • well i meant people who have addiction. if you're just a social smoker surely there's no complaint if you cn't smoke in a certain place?
    i dont know..

    I googled it..

    'n 2002, about 27 percent of men and 25 percent of women smoked'
    http://www.besttreatments.co.uk/btuk/conditions/13962.html

    I presume tht doesnt inc. social smokers. But it seems a bit mean to completely kick a quarter of people out of a pub because of their addiction?
    I dunno i can see people's points though.

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    But it seems a bit mean to completely kick a quarter of people out of a pub because of their addiction?.



    I am a 'addict' they told me to go to re-hab i said 'no no no'.

    Sorry.. :o

    There are several pubs in my area that have outside facilitise but have the warmth and atmosphere of being inside. I'm sure it is brushing the future regulations a bit, but not breaching them. I can just about cope with not being able to smoke... but not for many hours.. and certainly not when i'm pissed :whistle: .

    I don't frequent pubs as much as i did.. so i don't think it will effect me a great deal.. but when it does i think it will suck big time. I'll just have to cope.

  • Another problem is the way that it will affect pubs and bars that don’t have an outside space. One of my old locals is about to be turned into a steak house in preparation for the ban; I’d estimate their clientele is approximately 90% smokers and they know that, without a beer garden, they will lose them to other pubs.

    I do understand that it’s not nice for non-smokers to go out and be forced to drink in smoky environments, but when I consider pubs I know where the entire staff and pretty much the entire clientele are smokers, a blanket ban does seem rather daft.

  • I think that its a great idea, why should other people have to suffer because of smokers. I think it would be good, I dont smoke in my house anyway, only outside so I am sure it will push me to stop smoking!

  • Did you know that Adolph Hitler banned public smoking?? ....

    I`m fed up of rules and regulations, it`s ok for the youngsters to say what they do, they`ve not lived long enough to see all changes that have been made in the last 30years...they just comply...i`m sick of it...i`m turning into something i dont like and all because of `do-gooders` and `holier than thou` people...

    BAH HUMBUG!!!

  • Quote from Dan

    yey for the ban! health all the way! :D


    Away wi the ban, ah'm fir wan no awti gither happy wi the ban, no standin in the cauld N' rain tae have a fag.....

  • Smoking is already banned in our work place...on the premesis that is so i have to wander round the front onto the street for a fag...usually get by on a morning one on the way to work and a one in the afternoon...my night shifts are a diffeent matter though!!! If it is being banned in public places, where do we stand on smoking in our cars??? Are the town car parks going to be full of smoke filled cars with desparate shppoers having a sly one before they carry on their credit bashing?
    Imx

  • I find it rediculous when people agree on something that is done for them without their approval. However good or right it may be. It is oppresive, anachronistic and on the grounds that every now and then they decide that you can do something no more it is stressful and helps stupidity spread. How much better would it be for the individual to comprehend that something is bad if he/she shouldn't do it. The same applies with excessive drinking. Did limits in pub hours operation help to stop it? No. On the other hand you have people now drinkikg as early as 10-11 o'clock. Even now that hours are a bit freed you have inherited those cases from then. Well I could argue and argue about it for too long but I will cut to the chase. Democracy is about respecting the minorities or else everybody should do the same things and have one single opinion. ie. the majority cannot swallow the few for then pluralism is excluded and so is democracy. It is very easy to oblige recreation places to have seperate rooms for smokers and none smokers and if this is not possible because of lack of space, then distribute licenses analogously to what the area lacks between those two categories. I think then everybody would be happy. For I don't think that anyone is bothered when a smoker enters a non smoking area if he/she doesn't smoke in it, so friends wouldn't be seperated. What worries me though, and 2-3 people have mentioned it, is the easiness that the government can legislate a blanket ban. Are we sheep? Because they use many means to reach our soft spots such as health, money, predictions of a better future and a happier life and others, all similar to the tactics of advertisers. All I have seen is the government cry that smoking affects our life and then spend huge money on advertising campaigns and call it health policy, when the could give this to subsidise NHS or to battle the tobacco companies for a healthier ciggarete that would affect the non smoker less. As you may know there are about 3000 chemicals in a cigarette to make it burn uniformly or smell nicer or whatever else. And to close. How many of the researches actually said that it is this or the other substance that has this or/and the other effect to passive smokers. None. They just refer to smoking in general because it is working best to persuade the sheep.
    For our own good, but they didn't tell us what our own good is.

  • I know that such big posts are rarely read but being a new member,I had some catching up to do. Ride on HappyHippy, you complete me hehehe

  • Quote from Atomik

    Well that's kinda how governments work, so without a revolution on the horizon, I'd get used to it if I was you.

    I can't. Can you?

  • Quote from Atomik

    Umm... huh?

    I mean I can't get used to it. It will keep hurting me. I'd agree with you that there is ONE SOLUTION. REVOLUTION

  • They're called revolutions for a reason: they go round and round and nothing ever changes...

  • Quote from Darkflame

    They're called revolutions for a reason: they go round and round and nothing ever changes...

    Smart point. But it doesn't make sense. Can you explain?

  • Quote from Darkflame

    They're called revolutions for a reason: they go round and round and nothing ever changes...


    Lol


    Dont you go quoting "A course in miracles" at us :harhar:

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • How many smokers stood up to support shooters when handguns were banned?


    :(

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Darkflame

    What is "A course in miracles"?! :eek:


    A rather odd quasi-Christian newagey "sect".

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    A rather odd quasi-Christian newagey "sect".

    Then... WHAT DO YOU TAKE ME FOR?! :eek::eek::eek: I think nearly everyone must have noticed that I'm not even quasi-christian.


    Anyway... this is getting

  • Quote from Darkflame

    Then... WHAT DO YOU TAKE ME FOR?! :eek::eek::eek: I think nearly everyone must have noticed that I'm not even quasi-christian.


    I dunno, I think you are in denial :D but like ya say

    Quote


    Anyway... this is getting

    Quote

    Quote


    Indeed


    *"normal" (?!!) services resumed* :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    How many smokers stood up to support shooters when handguns were banned?

    You don't need to ask to have a gun.


    What do you need a gun for?

  • Quote from acido

    What do you need a gun for?

    Its like a cigarette... you can use it to relieve stress... and you can put it in your mouth... uh, I can't think of any more similarities... oh yeah, it kills people :)

  • Quote from acido

    You don't need to ask to have a gun.


    What do you need a gun for?


    Shooting handguns used to be a sport in this country (including an olympic sport) but they were banned after Dunblane (the olypmic team now have to practice abroad because the guns the shoot are banned here :insane:)on the ground they were dangerous. Cigarettes kill FAR more people each year than hand guns.


    How many smokers stood up to defend the sport of shooting when it was banned? Subsequently why should anyone defend smoking?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from Coyote

    How many smokers stood up to defend the sport of shooting when it was banned? Subsequently why should anyone defend smoking?

    I agree that they should be let practicing in controlled environment and not go abroad but I wouldn't issue them licenses to carry them around. Then everyone could join them and be able to carry a gun. In the USA there are about 1000 murders a year from guns because some people are so foolish to use them. Could it compare with the "murders" from passive smoking? As far as why should people defend smoking I said so much in post #72. Where do you disagree exactly?