GET IN THERE!!!

[ak47]

<div class='quotemain'>
yeah but you'll consume the same from cars in the walk down to the pub - the non smoking pub.
[/b]

But wouldn't it be nice to take one of those out of the equation? It's much easier to ban smoking in public place than it is to ban automobiles. No offense, it's a nasty habit. I live in a two level duplex. By this I mean I have neighbors that live below me. They smoke. We don't. Everytime I open a closet, or Cupbard, I get a refreshing breeze ala camel light.
[/b][/quote]

FORGET THIS BANNING SMOKING CRAP

BAN CIGARETTES FULLSTOP

Its getting to a point of shocking proporations...........its like owning a fully automatic machine gun......

its like I can buy the gun, and the bullets, but its illegal to shoot it

Bloody govt - if they really want to make amends to this 2nd hand smoking deaths - just ban the ********.

but noooooo.......we'll take too much of a hit in the pocket...as such, the public are blindfolded into the thinking banning indoors smoking will help solve the issue....it helps...but really get serious about it

20,000 smoking related deaths per annum in australia
9,000 alcohol related deaths
800 illegal drugs related deaths
100 murders

funny the top 2 are legal practises

 

[Goth Power]

I for one am a amoker here, I might not be the only one but I don't care what people have to say about it.

Sure its not good for my health a perhaps the odd one or tow that passes me but at the end of the day we only live once don't we?

Concentrating on more important matters such as the NHS and lack of funding in schools etc should be more looked at as it seems the government, despite all the money they receive from smokers, is being biased towards people with a habit.

The government are going to regret it as more and more people shall buy less smokes as they can't go out meaning they will loose a big amount of money. But seen as they are earning so much money I suppose it wont effect them THAT much.

Just because we have a habit doesn't mean we should be seperated from society for it.

 

[..::ERIC::..]

Just because we have a habit doesn't mean we should be seperated from society for it.
[/b]

No, but the fact that the habit kills others means we should.

 

[Ripper]

I for one am a amoker here, I might not be the only one but I don't care what people have to say about it.

Sure its not good for my health a perhaps the odd one or tow that passes me but at the end of the day we only live once don't we?

Concentrating on more important matters such as the NHS and lack of funding in schools etc should be more looked at as it seems the government, despite all the money they receive from smokers, is being biased towards people with a habit.

The government are going to regret it as more and more people shall buy less smokes as they can't go out meaning they will loose a big amount of money. But seen as they are earning so much money I suppose it wont effect them THAT much.

Just because we have a habit doesn't mean we should be seperated from society for it.
[/b]

Less People Smoking and Less People suffering from Second Hand Smoke = Less Money spent treating Smokers = More Money to go around in the NHS, as well as more money to put in schools.

 

[..::ERIC::..]

... = A lot less money coming in from taxes paid by smokers.

 

[ak47]

the amount of taxes/money raised from smokes far outweighs what goes back into treating the addicted

if u think its a perfect circle of funds - then why dont they just ban them....coz its a massive revenue gap to fill for what govt now have taken for granted.

 

[sanzar]

You're right smoking raises masses of money in taxes. With that in mind I say we legalise pot, cocain, heroin and speed and just put big arse taxes on them and health warnings on the front outlining what they do to you.

Any takers?

 

[..::ERIC::..]

To be honest I have no problem with legalizing pot.

 

[Goth Power]

To be fair though if it wasnt for tobacco then many people fighting wars (mainly WW1&WW2) wouldn't of been able to pull through as many of them smoked more than eating because of rations being of very poor quality and kept them going so smoking isn't entirely a VERY bad thing.

It's had its uses.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

To be fair though if it wasnt for tobacco then many people fighting wars (mainly WW1&WW2) wouldn't of been able to pull through as many of them smoked more than eating because of rations being of very poor quality and kept them going so smoking isn't entirely a VERY bad thing.
[/b]

They smoked during the war because they got given cigarette rations.

In what way does smoking instead of eating keep you going?

 

[wigan_rlfc]

<div class='quotemain'>, I HAVE A f***ING RIGHT TO HAVE A PINT AND A SMOKE AFTER WORK. [/b]

On the flip side though Teh Mite, I have a right to go to the pub and not have someone giving me cancer from second hand smoke.
[/b][/quote]

You don't even drink. Plus there can't be many deaths that can be proved to be a direct result of passive moking. Remember that that smoke has most likely passed through a filter and been filtered through the lungs and then most of it dissipate into the air before it gets anywher near your mouth/nose. Especially if you're in a no smoking area.

The weirdest this about this ban is that designated smoking rooms in workplaces with a closed door will be banned.

 

[An Tarbh]

so, pubs serve more than just acoholic drinks.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

so, pubs serve more than just acoholic drinks.
[/b]

Surely pubs were invented to be a place where people could buy alcohol.

 

[An Tarbh]

yes but that still doesn't stop them serving non alcoholic drinks, which they make a fortune off plus most pubs are now serving food on top of that.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

]You don't even drink [/b]

What in the name of the devil's briefcase has that got to do with anything?

 

[Goth Power]

They smoked during the war because they got given cigarette rations.

In what way does smoking instead of eating keep you going?[/b]

I don't know how to explain it in a sciencey kind of way but, it does

 

[An Tarbh]

well smoking keeps a lot of jockeys going who starve themselves to keep the weight down, probably the same premise for the soldiers, again not really a scientfic explanation and one I doubt many doctors would advocate either.

 

[Goth Power]

It definently is a two-way argument.

If people don't want to smell or choke on second-hand smoke then thats fine its only fair that we don't smoke around them but i must say banning smoking all together isn't the right way to go.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

but i must say banning smoking all together isn't the right way to go.
[/b]

They aren't banning it...they are just banning from all places where it's likely to give employees and innocent bystanders cancer.

People are free to do it as long as it isn't affecting anyone else.

Simple

SB

 

[Gulli]

I doubt very much that the rich and powerful have told them to ban smoking.
[/b]

that wasn't quite what i meant... i agree with some others here that if they are going to ban smoking in one place then they should instead put a complete ban on smoking but they won't because of the taxes that come from it