[Archived] Smoking Ban At Ewood

[roversmum]

I think I've lost the will to live

[Eddie]

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).

395861[/snapback]

Actually, if you had read all of my posts I think you will have found two counters to this

a) no pub would ever choose to go non-smoking unless there is an across the board ban

come here to paris, or even where I am in England, and find me a place where I could be even the least bit social and not be surrounded by smoke. Surely my civil liberties allow me to exit my house without having my health damaged by other people smoking. Or is it too much to ask for me to be able to go out to eat or have a drink and to think of myself? Smokers of course have more rights than me.

[dave birch]

Eddies right, europeans are inveterate smokers, as are the chinese.

To put it bluntly, it stinks, it dulls the taste buds, on your clothes it smells until washed, and it's harmful.

If you want to do it, do it where it won't affect anyone else.

Like I said, I've got no problem with anyone smoking, as long as they can contain it's effects within their own personal space.

[Radagast]

Well the ban came in up here just over a week ago, and it felt great to wake up on Sunday morning without my clothes reeking of smoke. And of the three pubs and one club I ventured into on Saturday there was none of the threatened evil smells that smokers have been graciously covering up over the years to be found. Good times.

[ABBEY]

well my ex was a smoker so i never noticed as much...last night i had a few in the roebuck at rishton and i noticed big time the smell on my clothes .

[roverich]

When they take away the rest of our rights and liberties without a fight, I won't be allowed to say I told you so.

395674[/snapback]

Mate the smoking ban has nothing to do with them taking away our "rights and liberties". It is a very encouraging sign that democracy is infact working well! The vast majority of people (in England) believe smoking should be banned in public places and have made their feelings known to the government through various channels. You've got it completely wrong - the government is not taking away our rights but is infact noting our rights, opinions and beliefs and acting on them! They have handled this situation superbly and I know many smokers who are in no way offended or upset that their rights to smoke in public places is becoming limited. They accept it is their vice and non-smokers should not have to go out their way (find anothere restaurant/pub or another football stadium to attend) to avoid the dangers of passive smoking!

P.S. If later all of our rights are taken away from us, it has nothing to do with the smoking ban but I will allow you to tell me "I told you so" because I know it will make you feel better.

Edited April 3, 2006 by roverich

[Ben-2000]

I think they've done it the wrong way round here...

the concourses will get even more smokey then they are now... would it not make sense to ban smoking down there instead of the seated area's where everyone is in the open air???! and does this ban extend to the rather large walkway at the front of the Riverside because that takes the place of a concourse apart from the bar at the back of the stand.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Ben-2000

[bellamy11]

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.

395865[/snapback]

I agree, however the big difference between cars and cigarettes are that cars significantly improve our lives and make them easier. The best thing to do about cars is make public transport so much better that we don't have to all drive round in petrol-guzzling machines but that's a different debate for a different time. I couldn't do without my car. Not because I'm addicted to it, but because it makes my life easier. I can get places faster at whatever time I want, sometimes at a cheaper price than an alternative (Rovers transport to Sunderland, for example). A car is a social benefit to the individual.

Cigarettes are not. There are no benefits to cigarettes. I don't drive my car because I crave to - there is a purpose. Unless the purpose is to increase your tar levels, where is the benefit to cigarettes?

In an ideal world, as you say, we'd have a far more envirnmentally-friendly alternative to driving round in cars etc. But we aren't talking about a government taking away all our civil liberties. Cars are not going to be banned because they are a help, if not essential. Cigarettes are only essential to those that are addicted to the drug.

Both harm our health, but only one makes a fundamental part of our lives (tranport) easier. And that is why cigarettes are copping it, not cars.

American, are we on the first step to communism? How many examples can you give me of legal things that should be banned because they cause harm to people other than the consumer, yet contain no actual benefits to anybody? In my opinion, cigarettes are the exception, not the rule. It is an incredible exaggeration that we are about to decend into the world of 1984.

[Atomicrover]

Sorry, the only thing I can add to this debate is that, once when the guy next to me let his smoking hand down to his side (and yes I mean he had a cigarette in it, not his hand that was smoking!), he burnt a hole through my Rovers Bench jacket.

[asianRover]

ok, if in fact democracy seems to be working by banning smoking, one must remember that it comes with a price.

as eddie has mentioned 'Smokers of course have more rights than me'

very well if you wanna talk about rights... correct me if im wrong but now cos of the ban, non smokers have more rights than smokers, do they not?

though it can be depressing to speak up for those idiots out there who smoke in crowded areas, in front of kids and the elderly, but why not just have a couple of smoking areas here and there for smokers to puff their lives away?

Edited April 3, 2006 by asianRover

[Jan]

Because smoke drifts. However you try to contain it.

[roversmum]

I don't think the message is getting through, Jan

[Holmes]

I don't want to get into a big side debate about whether they'll ban cars or not, I merely used it a better example then comparing cigarettes to burgers. Whether they'll ban cars in the future or not is hard to tell, as you said some people feel they need them to get around. However I'll bet alot of the places you go to can be reached easily via others means, like the train, cycling, buses or walking.

Back to the smoking ban at Ewood though. Alot of people have been mentioning democracy, that the rights of the non-smokers have to be upheld as their way of life is healthy, and the actions of smokers threaten to ruin that health. I agree with that completely. However if we wanted to be truly democratic it would make sense to simply have a smokers area, so that everyone is appeased.

[Jan]

I don't think the message is getting through, Jan

I know! Unless you make a smoking room airtight (when oxygen becomes a bit of a problem and death would happen quicker than by smoking!!!) non-smokers fet affected. Even if it's only the smoke when the door is opened escaping to poison others!

The "smoking areas" in airports are ridiculous for that as well.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Jan

[Eddie]

Yes, but as many people have mentioned, most recently jan only two posts up, a football ground is open air and so it would be impossible from stopping the smoke from drifting. If they want to dedicate some closed off room somewhere in the ground to smoking then I have no problem with that.

[bellamy11]

I don't want to get into a big side debate about whether they'll ban cars or not, I merely used it a better example then comparing cigarettes to burgers. Whether they'll ban cars in the future or not is hard to tell, as you said some people feel they need them to get around. However I'll bet alot of the places you go to can be reached easily via others means, like the train, cycling, buses or walking.

396000[/snapback]

Public transport and alternative form of transport are certainly better for the environment in terms of air pollution, congestion etc. But, as we've both said now, we aren't here to talk about that.

My point is that there is a simple justification for cars in society. It gets people from A to B. There is no simple justification for cigarettes. Sure, they're legal, and if people want to smoke them then that is their choice. But it isn't my choice, and I don't want to be affected by it. If there are alternatives to cars as a mode of transport then there must be alternatives to smoking cigarettes for something to do. If people cannot go three hours without cigarettes then they have a far bigger problem than the government "taking away their rights".

I believe there is a logical justification for the smoking ban in public places, and by extension, the smoking ban at Ewood. If a smoking area could be set up then it should be, but there is no possible way of setting one up where smoke will not affect those who do not want it.

Things that damage our health are inevitable in our society. But some things are necessary and some things are not. Cigarettes are completely unnecessary in society because they provide us with no benefits. Therefore it is at least logical that they be the target of an initiative taken to actually improve the health of the population.

[AggyBlue]

Things that damage our health are inevitable in our society. But some things are necessary

396011[/snapback]

Like what?

[Eddie]

Cars, planes, trains and a ton of other things that require energy.

[bellamy11]

Like what?

396013[/snapback]

Eddie has already answered for you. Which do you do to away games then? Run, bike, or paraglide?

[roversmum]

Don't be silly,Bellamy11

He rides his horse of course

[SouthAussieRover]

Eddie has already answered for you. Which do you do to away games then? Run, bike, or paraglide?

396020[/snapback]

Diverting here but are you aware of the carcinogens present in exhaust fumes and petrol?

[den]

Diverting here but are you aware of the carcinogens present in exhaust fumes and petrol?

396040[/snapback]

I'm sure they do SAR, and I reckon everyone supports the government in trying to reduce the harmful effects of that - just as the vast majority of people support the ban on smoking in public places.

Where's the problem?

[SouthAussieRover]

You tell me.

[Eddie]

Diverting here but are you aware of the carcinogens present in exhaust fumes and petrol?

396040[/snapback]

I think they have been mentioned several times. We'd all like to get rid of cars if we could, but it simply isn't possible at the minute. Hopefully we all use public transportation as much as possible and try to buy fuel efficient cars, but cars are a necessary evil at the moment, though I am sure everyone is in full support of the development of technology that could help reduce and if not eliminate such emissions. No point saying, well may as well because we have that. We can try to get rid of as many harmful elements of life as we possibly can, smoking is an unnecessary but incredibly dangerous one that we have the opportunity to eliminate relatively easily without any cost, though I'm sure a few addicts and tobacco producers would disagree.

[American]

Actually, if you had read all of my posts I think you will have found two counters to this

a) no pub would ever choose to go non-smoking unless there is an across the board ban

come here to paris, or even where I am in England, and find me a place where I could be even the least bit social and not be surrounded by smoke. Surely my civil liberties allow me to exit my house without having my health damaged by other people smoking. Or is it too much to ask for me to be able to go out to eat or have a drink and to think of myself? Smokers of course have more rights than me.

395891[/snapback]

Should have taken some of daddy's money and opened one. From the claptrap I hear on here it would have done booming business.

Take this scenerio: The government today has announced a ban on growing certain types of flowers and grasses in private citizens yards. The following flowers and grasses will no longer be allowed to be grown due to the problems they cause allergy sufferers. Those in apartments will not be allowed to own them in their residences, either. All of these flowers and grasses must be exposed of immediately. These include:

Artemisia

Bahia grass

Bermuda grass

blue fescue

bluegrass

buttercup

castor bean

centipede grass

fountain grass

gamma grass

goldenrod

orchard grass

sedge (Carex)

Timothy grass

In addition, the following trees will not be allowed to be planted. Anyone with one of these types of trees will be required to remove it (them) at the owners expense. These can cause harm to other people's health:

almond

ash (male)

Arizona cypress

aspen (male)

bald cypress

black acacia

catalpa

Chinese elm

cottonwood

elm

eucalyptus

fringe tree (male)

Kentucky coffee (male)

mango

mountain laurel

mulberry

oaks

olive

Osage orange (male)

pecan

poplar (male)

privet (male)

red cedar

Russian olive

silver maple (male)

smoke tree

sumac (male)

sycamore

walnut

willows (male)

zelkova

In addition, all owners of motor vehicles will not be allowed to turn the engines on. This act can cause health problems in the people in the vicinity of the vehicles, and will be banned immediately.

A third act put into effect is that all cattle must be slaughtered immediately. The methane from the cattle causes a negative environmental impact and WILL lead to loss of lives.

I could go on. But all those who have given health reasons for banning smoking in PRIVATELY OWNED bars and restaurants are total hypocrites if you think the scenerios I just outlined are ridiculous.