Is the idea of a smoking ban...

Good! alienate the fuckers!
49% (17 votes)
Bad! Try Something else!
23% (8 votes)
Ugly! Leave the smelly smoking sods alone!
29% (10 votes)
Total votes: 35

Posted By

Honk
Nov 16 2004 13:04

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

Honk
Nov 16 2004 13:04

So...

should there be a smoking ban in public places? What alternative measures are preferable? Is the popularity of smoking really an important issue?

nuclearcivvy
Nov 16 2004 13:13

Ban banning things.

(except war)

LiveFastDiarrea
Nov 16 2004 13:18

One good thing about it, banned it will stop people saying "oh jesus christ, what a waste" at me when walking down the street having a fag. I'm in two minds really, in one way I dont want to have to go stand outside to smoke, on the other hand, I know working in a pub is a lot nicer when there is no smoking at the bar, so maybe if there is no smoking anywhere it will be better still.

Ramona
Nov 16 2004 13:33

It would be nice to come home from a gig/pub/club and my hair not smelling of other people's ashtrays. Or avoiding pubs cos they make me cough my lungs up.

WeTheYouth
Nov 16 2004 13:33

In principle i am against it, what gives teh state teh right to intervene in this, people can make there own choices, if tehy dont want to sit in there local full of smoke then they can got to the non-smoking wine bar down the road; but then again, i do hate sitting in a room filled with smoke, being a non-smoker.

JDMF
Nov 16 2004 13:52

pro-ban, fucking great.

samjam
Nov 16 2004 14:08

Why have a ban when you can accomodate both? What's wrong with just having a separate smoking section that's sealed off? confused

Thora
Nov 16 2004 14:08

I'm against banning things in principle, and I like smoking so it will be a pain in the arse. But, if smoking is made less convenient and enjoyable, I would be more likely to stop - which I suppose is a good thing.

Ghost_of_the_re...
Nov 16 2004 14:15

Any fucking corporation on Earth has carte blanche to fill your lungs with toxic shit and poison your children, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do the same.

Spartacus
Nov 16 2004 14:38

everyone knows cool anarchists smoke, just look at the last scene of sympathy for mr vengeance before they **** the ****l ********** to *****. also i think they should ban all smoking stuff except those cool cigars that clint smokes, and wearing a poncho whilst smoking them should be compulsory, as then their coolness will compensate for the fact that they're making me breath in their smoke.

but i don't actually care either way about the ban. maybe it will force wma meetings out of pubs, that would be good. i certainly won't be engaging in any civil disobedience to stop it. but putting good bad and ugly in a title is a great way to get a thread read, well done.

edited by gav, coz everyone tries to spoil the end of 'sympathy for mr vengeance', and its a great film,- and doesn't deserve to be ruined.

WeTheYouth
Nov 16 2004 14:40
Jack wrote:
and what right do YOU have to oppress my lungs you NAZI?

Non is the answer, so therfore there has to be a middle ground found, such as seperate rooms, and you can go somewhere else if you dont like a smoke filled room, there are plenty of non smoking places you can go, and plenty of places have a non smoking room. So what right do you have to call me a nazi you social engineering democratic socialist?

Steven.
Nov 16 2004 19:01

TBH i think i'm in favour. I mean I think anarchist meetings should all be non-smoking (with breaks).

I think it would help people who smoke - such as meself - to cut down, as with fewer people smoking around you you don't want to as much, also I hate my clothes stinking of fags whenever i get in from a pub, club or whathaveyou.

Having said that of course I'm an anarchist and so am totally opposed to all state bans and will have to take direct action against this by blowing smoke in the faces of wetherspoons staff and other fascist pigdogs twisted

wink

JDMF
Nov 16 2004 19:32

fucking hell, no matter what workers health and safety regulation we would be discussing here, everyone would be in favour. Now many have voted against the ban, because i presume pub and restaurant workers are not worth it or something?

Caiman del Barrio
Nov 16 2004 20:49
GenerationTerrorist wrote:
those cool cigars that clint smokes, and wearing a poncho whilst smoking them should be compulsory

I like you so much more now.

Caiman del Barrio
Nov 16 2004 20:54

To be honest, I don't wanna go all EF on all your class strugglin' wannabe pov asses, but if they're gonna ban smoking outside, they should sure as fuck do something about the pollution we inhale in every single town or city.

I always laugh at straight edge kids who diss me for enjoying a joint but can't hack the country air.

I also think it would be paradoxical for me, as an anarchist, to support national law. (And that's not say I'm pro-rape before some pseudo-liberal claims I am.)

WeTheYouth
Nov 16 2004 21:02
Quote:
Now many have voted against the ban, because i presume pub and restaurant workers are not worth it or something?

Its not just concerned with that is it, and no one in this movement would say that as you know. There is a better way than an outright ban.

gangster
Nov 16 2004 21:13

They're cloaking it all in health and safety for workers to suit other aims... It has been a health and safety issue for decades, why now the ban though? It's more to do with an anti working class agenda twisted

They haven't banned it everywhere because it would lead to a situation similar to USA in the 1920s and 1930s when we had prohibition... already through pricing the working class has been forced to use elements of illicit practices to continue smoking anyway... AN anarchist analysis ought to get to the heart of the matter,and that is capitalist social relations have led us to this situation... We resist the capitalist state, the corporations, and support those who are 'victimised' surely?? If they came out with a complete band WE would have to politically and physically defend the speakeasies surely black bloc red n black star Mr. T circle A

nuclearcivvy
Nov 16 2004 21:24
Jack wrote:
and what right do YOU have to oppress my lungs you NAZI?

Feel free to hold your breath. smile

Bet you don't feel that hostile toward the haulage firm that bring your cornflakes. They contribute ten times more harm to our lungs than passive smoke.

Freedom to smoke, and freedom to breathe. Surely they can't be mutually exclusive.

cantdocartwheels
Nov 16 2004 21:35
gangster wrote:
They're cloaking it all in health and safety for workers to suit other aims... It has been a health and safety issue for decades, why now the ban though? It's more to do with an anti working class agenda twisted

They haven't banned it everywhere because it would lead to a situation similar to USA in the 1920s and 1930s when we had prohibition... already through pricing the working class has been forced to use elements of illicit practices to continue smoking anyway... AN anarchist analysis ought to get to the heart of the matter,and that is capitalist social relations have led us to this situation... We resist the capitalist state, the corporations, and support those who are 'victimised' surely?? If they came out with a complete band WE would have to politically and physically defend the speakeasies surely black bloc red n black star Mr. T circle A

x I don't care about the ban that much, but i don't see how it relates too prohibibition at all. Prohibtion was designed by bosses to crush the drinking culture of union halls.

Smoking won't be made illegal, the tobacco industry is one of the key founders of capitalism and remains a powerful magnate with a massive profit margin. Alcohol has joined tobacco as a mass industry and is a huge source of revenue for sections of the ruling class.

Only a third of people smoke, and less of those smoke regularly heavy smoking is not really that popular. So this is simply the bourgeoisie attempting to liquidate smaller bars and businesses and shifting its tactics in response to shifting demand in market forces and the chance of higher profits from non-smoking customers, who will be buying lots of drinks, which are of course, a far easier way of making money than ciggarettwes at present. Also more people eat out in pubs now, and food is also a good way of making money. x

xjohnx

Caiman del Barrio
Nov 16 2004 21:58
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Only a third of people smoke

If you're talking about the UK, only 1 in 6 smoke.

lucy82
Nov 16 2004 22:12

i smoke but i'm not really that arsed practically whether its banned or not. i already can't smoke at work except outside. i quite like smoking outside at work, its the only time i see daylight in winter. if its banned in pubs etc, i'd go outside without too much fuss.

i don't like government bans on principle though.

how about a deal? no more fags in pubs etc in exchange for no more polluting bypasses? and the goverment stops taking revenue from tobacco whilst spending public money on anti-smoking campaigns.

out of interest, the alcohol industry was faced with sliding profits at the height of raves cause people wanted other, less profitable drugs (for the alcohol industry and govenment anyway). pesky kids kept drinking water. so they introduced alcopops, brightly coloured sweet drinks with a strong addictive drug for young market. kept the industry on its feet. didn't hear much bleating from the government then.

Steven.
Nov 17 2004 00:41
gangster wrote:
They're cloaking it all in health and safety for workers to suit other aims... It has been a health and safety issue for decades, why now the ban though? It's more to do with an anti working class agenda twisted

Such as what??

Quote:
They haven't banned it everywhere because it would lead to a situation similar to USA in the 1920s and 1930s when we had prohibition... already through pricing the working class has been forced to use elements of illicit practices to continue smoking anyway... AN anarchist analysis ought to get to the heart of the matter,and that is capitalist social relations have led us to this situation... We resist the capitalist state, the corporations, and support those who are 'victimised' surely?? If they came out with a complete band WE would have to politically and physically defend the speakeasies surely black bloc red n black star Mr. T circle A

Please tell me you're joking...

And as someone said - what about a state ban on rape? As an anarchist, would you have to "physically defend" the rapists?

Spartacus
Nov 17 2004 12:16
Quote:
edited by gav, coz everyone tries to spoil the end of 'sympathy for mr vengeance', and its a great film,- and doesn't deserve to be ruined.

ha! well i had the end told to me before i saw it. in fact, you lot showed me the end before i got to see the rest of the film. and it was still a fantastic film.

Quote:
only 1 in 6 smoke.

yeah, but in the anarchist movement it often seems like well over half.

Quote:
you can go somewhere else if you dont like a smoke filled room, there are plenty of non smoking places you can go, and plenty of places have a non smoking room.

why should the majority (none smokers) have to be treated as the exception that special room has to be made for? it's not them with the unpleasant habit inflicting it on other people. i mean, there aren't seperate rooms in pubs for people who wash regularly so that crusties can be free to be smelly whilst enjoying their pint without people complaining are there?

Quote:
And as someone said - what about a state ban on rape? As an anarchist, would you have to "physically defend" the rapists?

yes, but to be fair, smoking irritating and unhealthy though it is, is not really comparable to rape. and isn't the ban mostly about restricting where you can smoke, not actually if you can? just like restrictions on where you can take a piss or shit. if everyone who needed the toilet in a pub just went on the table the places would be even more unpleasant, but they don't because they know they have to go to a specific place for that. for bodily fnctions that place is the toilet, for smokers it would be nice if it was outside.

Jacques Roux
Nov 17 2004 12:48

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaan it.

Nope i havent got anything constructive to say!

captainmission
Nov 17 2004 13:10

Only reason i can see for banning smoking is to protect the bar staff- there the only ones there with no real choice of whether to be there or not. The the governemnts half-arsed plans leave 20% of pubs not covered by the ban.

WeTheYouth
Nov 17 2004 13:19
Quote:
why should the majority (none smokers) have to be treated as the exception that special room has to be made for? it's not them with the unpleasant habit inflicting it on other people. i mean, there aren't seperate rooms in pubs for people who wash regularly so that crusties can be free to be smelly whilst enjoying their pint without people complaining are there?

Thats ridiculous, obviously there can be rooms made especially for either smokers or non smokers.

LiveFastDiarrea
Nov 17 2004 13:30

Someone told me that the ban was only going to be in pubs that serve food. Is that true?

captainmission
Nov 17 2004 13:41

yeah that's right, apart from private members clubs which serve food.

LiveFastDiarrea
Nov 17 2004 13:59

so if a pub had a seperate eatery away from the rest of the pub (say downstairs for example) and no food was served upstairs, would you be able to smoke upstairs, or is it any pub with a kitchen is ruled out completely.

Steven.
Nov 17 2004 14:06
WeTheYouth wrote:
Thats ridiculous, obviously there can be rooms made especially for either smokers or non smokers.

But that won't work, cos non-smokers have smoking friends. If a smoker has to leave the room to light up, you might as well have to go outside!