[Archived] Smoking Ban At Ewood

[SouthAussieRover]

Want a bit more nonsense Eddie?

Next I'd ban motor vehicles etc from a 5 mile radius of Ewood on matchday.Exhaust fumes have lots of nasty carcinogens in them.

BTW I'd suggest you don't sesort to snidey, "merde" like statements such as "To get all worked up about this saying we are going down a path where we won't be able to do this, that or the other is simply ridiculous and is a poor attempt at trying to counter some fairly well reasoned arguments through the use of non-sensical extremes" when people use arguments that don't fit with your point of view.

And a smiley for good measure Shivni

Edited April 2, 2006 by SouthAussieRover

[Eddie]

If you use actual arguments that I don't agree with but actually have a point I won't make a comment like that. For example, your comment on the way it could have an effect on the crowd makes sense, I don't agree, but at least it is valid.

To say, this is stupid why don't we ban hot dogs, burgers and chips while we are at it as they aren't good for you either doesn't really improve the debate does it?

[roversmum]

It's all getting a bit silly now.

Smoking is not to be allowed in the vicinity of food so I should have thought it was obvious why smoking in the concourse will eventually be banned!

And I know someone will trot out rubbish about it not happening but I've seen a lad who was wearing a footy shirt which was set on fire by hot ash dropping on him. Aside from cancer, that isn't worth the risk either. How many fires have been started by cigarette ends not being stubbed out properly?

Get over it, it's for the best.

No-one has answered my question as to why anyone should want to smoke anyway. Mouth like the bottom of a budgie's cage and smell like an ashtray? More money than sense? It's not cheap is it? Just look at the walls and ceilings in a smoker's house and compare them with a non-smoker's house.

And let's face it, the reason why most smokers smoke is because they didn't have the guts to say 'no' when someone offered them one, or because 'everyone else was doing it', or as a youngster trying to look 'big'! I'll wager 99 per cent of smokers wish they didn't!

[SouthAussieRover]

If you use actual arguments that I don't agree with but actually have a point I  won't make a comment like that. For example, your comment on the way it could have an effect on the crowd makes sense, I don't agree, but at least it is valid.

To say, this is stupid why don't we ban hot dogs, burgers and chips while we are at it as they aren't good for you either doesn't really improve the debate does it?

395733[/snapback]

Well Eddie,with your vast knowledge of everything,surely you realise that such foods are extremely unhealthy.Now I readily accept that smoking is unhealthy.So lets take it to the next step and ban other unhealthy substances.

Try to use your vast experiences and education you've attained across the globe to assimilate and digest information.

Mind you I suspect your training at,let me see,is it Guildford(?) is skilling you in answering questions or replying to points of view that bear little relevance to the initial point.

Anyway we disagree and thats fine by me.

[Ozz]

The Jack Walker Stand was originally a total non-smoking stand, but was later changed to no smoking in the seats, I guess because of it either being un workable or unpopular.

[bb3]

They should keep the bar open till full time,it'll do a roaring trade second half now.

[asianRover]

well... sad to say, sorta havta to agree wif you roversmum. most smokers started out that way however my reasons are my own which i aint gonna share wif strangers online, im sure you'll understand.

anyways what people like me, american, and SouthAussieRover are tryin to say is ban smoking then what's next? there are other dangerous stuff in the world which should be equally banned as well aint it?

[stuwilky]

Well Eddie,with your vast knowledge of everything,surely you realise that such foods are extremely unhealthy.Now I readily accept that smoking is unhealthy.So lets take it to the next step and ban other unhealthy substances.

395738[/snapback]

The argument that would be made in counter of that is that those substances only directly affect the people who choose to consume them.

NOT anyone located close by.

And roversifmylife advocating banning beer Its only to stop me spilling it on him

[roversWASmylife]

I expect a pint tomorrow Stu

[SouthAussieRover]

The argument that would be made in counter of that is that those substances only directly affect the people who choose to consume them.

NOT anyone located close by.

And roversifmylife advocating banning beer    Its only to stop me spilling it on him 

395749[/snapback]

\

A poor response.

High fat diets and alcohol intake cost the health system millions of dollars/pounds per year.

And if you are in danger of spilling beer on me you already have a problem

[asianRover]

And if you are in danger of spilling beer on me you already have a problem

395752[/snapback]

[roversmum]

Have to agree with you there, asianrover. There are dangerous things about which need banning. My daughter's neighbour for a start . I digress.

I guess you feel targeted. Come to think of it, perhaps I should start smoking. My friend put on three stone when she stopped, and it just dropped off when she started again. Could do with losing a bit myself.

On the other hand, maybe a morning run would have the same effect, be cheaper and better for me.

Don't want to stop anyone's enjoyment of something, just would like them to feel the same about me.

[stuwilky]

\

A poor response.

High fat diets and alcohol intake cost the health system millions of dollars/pounds per year.

And if you are in danger of spilling beer on me you already have a problem

395752[/snapback]

The argument that would be used. Not my argument. It could have course be referring to the direct personal cost rather than the economic/social cost. But whoever said that would clearly just be being awkward.

And its always Ben's fault when I spill beer, always. *I believe it has happened twice, worryingly both while perfectly sober*

[SouthAussieRover]

The argument that would be used.  Not my argument.  It could have course be referring to the direct personal cost rather than the economic/social cost.  But whoever said that would clearly just be being awkward.

And its always Ben's fault when I spill beer, always.  *I believe it has happened twice, worryingly both while perfectly sober*

395758[/snapback]

Of course it could be construed as being awkward to suggest that other activities do have an impact on others health.

You can't see your doctor because he's busy seeing the imbibers of alcohol and consumers of high fat diets.Therefore your own health deteriorates further etc etc.

And if you spill beer whilst sober maybe you need medical help

Edited April 2, 2006 by SouthAussieRover

[asianRover]

roversmum, i reckon just stick to the morning run. ciggs aint somethin that should be picked up in the 1st place. one of my friend suffered some lung problems and had to quit period. another one of my friend cannot drink at all anymore, due to excessive drinking, resulting in damaged liver. well the thing is that both of them are still in their early 20s. in terms of damage, both are equally harmful. so why ban one but not the other? i presume at this rate, after a complete ban on smoking, drinking will be next.

Edited April 2, 2006 by asianRover

[Eddie]

\

A poor response.

High fat diets and alcohol intake cost the health system millions of dollars/pounds per year.

And if you are in danger of spilling beer on me you already have a problem

395752[/snapback]

They aren't going to make me sick now though are they? The point is that we aren't taking away people's rights to make their own decisions, but rather to make decisions that directly affect the lives of others. If you can honeslty say that you think eating a burger or having a smoke are on the same level then fair enough, but I don't think anyone, even the most hardened smoker, would.

I've got to get back to work now though, exams coming up and I need to learn how to dodge the question for a bit longer.

[stuwilky]

And if you spill beer whilst sober maybe you need medical help  

395761[/snapback]

I cant seem to stop my hand shaking....

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

No standing,no swearing,no drinking,no smoking.......................

The 'soccer am' watchers world of football @ 2006.

[bellamy11]

I can see both sides of the argument, honestly I do. But I just don't see where the smokers are more justified than the non-smokers.

First of all, it isn't being banned because of the ill health it causes the user. It directly causes those nearby to inhale, stink, increase chances of cancer bla bla bla. This is not the same as a burger and I think you know it, Don. If I can't see my doctor because somebody has a weight problem then that's my own tough luck. But I'd imagine it would be just as difficult to see a doctor with everybody eventually getting cancer. Cigarettes must be more harmful than burgers, both directly to the consumer and those around.

The right of the person to smoke a legal substance is the other strong argument. But I think the exaggeration of the consequences of this have started to overlook the point. The government is not going to ban all fatty foods and cars which produce fumes and alcohol etc. There is a case for getting rid of alcohol, but the consumer benefits from eating a fatty burger that they like and they benefit from being able to travel faster by car etc. There are no benefits whatsoever to smoking. So to compare them to something useful isn't a good comparison.

[waggy]

######

[Holmes]

I don't think a burger example is a very good way of explaining the argument.

I can see that people don't want bodily harm inflicted on them in any way, quite rightly so too. Second hand smoke annoys people, makes them smell, and in some cases can be attributed as a cause of cancer. However it is the invasion people feel the goverment are causing that makes people upset. It's the wedge theory that while they are banning smoking, what is stop them banning other things, and where will the line stop? Thinking that the goverment won't ban cars isn't unreasonable now they have banned smoking.

Afterall I don't drive, and I don't see why I should be subjected to dangerous drivers, acid rain, urban smog, respiratory problems, lung cancer, greenhouse effect, the consumption of irreplaceable fossil fuels, pollution and bad air. Much like smoking used to be though, cars are a vital part of the economy. However as smoking has been phased out, become unpopular, and has been eventually banned so might cars. Afterall there have already been measures put in place to reduce the pollution made by cars, the congestion cars create, and limit the amount of fossil fuels we consume through cars. There's the Clean Air Act, the congestion charge, ideas like car pooling, the encouragment to use public transport or walk or cycle. Even at a recent meeting at Downing Street the ministers opted to walk there rather then drive to display their attitudes towards it.

Everyone has known smoking is bad for them for years. Even before it wasn't proved, when people who smoked were coughing up tar they had a clue what caused it. Everyone knows cars are bad for the environment, and while they may be nifty to pick the kids up in, or pop up the road for shopping with, people know they are causing problems either for our generation or the next. Like smoking, just because everyone seems to drive doesn't make it cool. Like smoking, the cost of driving is rising, and will keep rising untill it is viewed as too expensive. Like smoking, if more and more people quit it then those who are left will be viewed as causing unneccesary damages to those around them and banned. Then people will back to the smoker vs non-smoker argument we're in now. Some will say it's good no-one is allowed to drive anymore. Other's will say why not ban planes, as they cause more pollution then cars, and why stop there and ban all emission creating devices to send us back into the medieval age. The weird thing is though, is that unless we know where the goverment will stop there's no telling what will happen.

As we're not yet in the medieval age, and there are worse things to worry about (like cars), why not give people the freedom of choice and have a smoker area and non-smoker area. I'm sure the nicotine will help ease the stress, and if smokers smoke around other smokers they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. Banning it will only drive a few people away.

(just to note, I don't smoke.)

[AggyBlue]

Let's just find out who the smokers are and ban them, no wait, why not shoot all the smokers

Pathetic.

I just see it as further erosion of our freedom and the people who are cheering any sort of bans, whatever they are, just don't see it.

[American]

The point is that we aren't taking away people's rights to make their own decisions, but rather to make decisions that directly affect the lives of others.

395770[/snapback]

Total BS. You are taking away a pub owners right to make his own decision. The only reason it directly affects the lives of others is because you allow it to by going into the pub. I have no problem with banning smoking from public buildings and public environments. You can't blame the government that no one chooses to have no smoking places.

I have yet to see you counter that arguement, yet I've countered all of yours (unlike what you so pompously said earlier).

[joey_big_nose]

I am currently a smoker giving up and I can see that passive smoking is damaging to the health of others as well as being unpleasent.

I don't think it is an erosion of liberties to be denied the right to damage someone elses health. I cannot see how it is possible for smokers to claim the moral high ground on this.

Theoretically the only way you could make it work is if you had pubs run by smokers, staffed by smokers and frequented by smokers. Eddy made a good point in that in Britain those who take bar jobs rarely have the option of picking and choosing their place of work.

If it is fairly and universally applied then there are only benefits. Smokers can take it outside and you will see less and less people smoking as it becomes drastically easier to quit. People will live longer, the health service will have resources freed up. The Tax revenue raised from cigarettes will have to be found from elsewhere, but former smokers will still save vast amounts of cash over a year.

[stuwilky]

Lets remember that this is not about the governments ban.

This is about Blackburn Rovers decision to ban smoking, their hand has not been forced into the decision in the slightest.