Ireland bands smoking in the Pubs! - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-07-2004, 05:58 PM   #46
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


Some of these, but not all are somewhat bad comparisons. I dont think bonoman would disagree. There is though an issue directly related to alcohol itself with no bigger picture issues, like drunk driving, random accidents from foolish behaviour, and the simple fact that alcohol can and does break up families. It is as addictive and dangerous as many other drugs and it in itself is a major cause of just as many health problems.

Personally, I couldnt really care less if smoking was banned everywhere. I think its stupid, and definitely hypocritical as I cant honestly imagine everyone who disagrees with smoking in pubs never eats fast food, never throws down a few drinks here and there, religiously sticks to the exercise 3-5 times a week rule and doesn't set foot inside a poluted dirty city inhaling all the fumes. Please. It is as much about health issues as my arse. It has to be fundamentally the smell which pisses everyone off. And that is ok, because cigarettes stink. But health reasons, no way. When we see worldwide bans on McDonalds and Guinness then I will see a point.

Besides which, beer stinks. And McDonalds restaurants (oxymoron of the day) reek like shit too. We dont outlaw them. Though we should if we want to be fair about all this.
Yes, they are bad comparisons. I would never argue that alcohol doesn't cause problems. However, comparing those stated with second hand smoke don't fly.

But Angela, why one extreme or the other? Most people are hypocritical and live with contradictions, so why expect more from the government? Do what you can with what you have. Second hand smoke is bad, banning is a step in the right direction. I am also for banning every type of fast food, but it won't happen any time soon.

As for banning cars, I love the idea, but we are not ready for it. It has to be introduced slowly and intelligently. How many years would it take to implement this in any given city? 10 or 20?

The smell does suck big time. Though I don't recall waking up the next day after being out and thinking that I stink like Guiness.

NB is right as well. Of course a bar owner will allow smoking because there are no incentives not to.
__________________

__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 12:36 AM   #47
The Fly
 
babble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lynn Haven, FL
Posts: 145
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Honestly some of the "arguments" against a ban on cigarette smoke in this thread remind me of the arguments I used as a kid when told I had to clean my room. I'd immediately start pointing my finger at my siblings and saying they needed to clean theirs as well, as though pointing out this fact detracted from the need for me to clean mine.

Acknowleding all the other health threats in this world that aren't currently banned does not invalidate the need to protect people from the noxious, posionous pollution known as cigarette smoke. Surely you all are aware of the deadliness of second-hand smoke?

In case you are not so informed, here are some facts from the Center for Disease Control website.

Health Effects

Secondhand smoke is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer and coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.1,2,4 Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).2,4

Because their lungs are not fully developed, young children are particularly susceptible to secondhand smoke. Exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia in young children.1,5

Current Estimates

An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.6

Each year, secondhand smoke is associated with an estimated 8,00026,000 new asthma cases in children.4 Annually an estimated 150,000300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months (7,50015,000 of which will require hospitalization) are associated with secondhand smoke exposure in the United States.4

Approximately 60% of people in the United States have biological evidence of secondhand smoke exposure.7

Among children aged less than 18 years, an estimated 22% are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes, with estimates ranging from 11.7% in Utah to 34.2% in Kentucky.8


Simply put, when you smoke, you not only physically harm yourself, but of everyone around you. No one should have the right to hurt some one else. With these facts in mind, why would you be against a ban on smoking in a public environment?
__________________

__________________
babble is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 12:38 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by babble
With these facts in mind, why would you be against a ban on smoking in a public environment?
Exactly what I've been asking all along....someone enlighten us please....
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 12:47 AM   #49
The Fly
 
babble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lynn Haven, FL
Posts: 145
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Personally, I couldnt really care less if smoking was banned everywhere. I think its stupid, and definitely hypocritical as I cant honestly imagine everyone who disagrees with smoking in pubs never eats fast food, never throws down a few drinks here and there, religiously sticks to the exercise 3-5 times a week rule and doesn't set foot inside a poluted dirty city inhaling all the fumes. Please. It is as much about health issues as my arse. It has to be fundamentally the smell which pisses everyone off. And that is ok, because cigarettes stink. But health reasons, no way. When we see worldwide bans on McDonalds and Guinness then I will see a point. Besides which, beer stinks. And McDonalds restaurants (oxymoron of the day) reek like shit too. We dont outlaw them. Though we should if we want to be fair about all this.
With this form of logic, one could say that Bono has no right speaking out against the pollution caused by Sellafield or Chernobyl as he lights up and pollutes the air around him with posionous cigarette smoke.
__________________
babble is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 01:03 AM   #50
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Yes exactly babble, yet no one is telling him to stop are they?

Same thing iacrobat. Why pick one problem and not all? Its not the only danger.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 01:48 AM   #51
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 02:29 AM
Then ban the fuckin things!

I have no problems with banning smokes sales.

Is everyone here for banning smokes altogether? Please say yes. Oh but the gov't would never do that because of the taxes it generates.

It kills everyone, why are our gov't still selling them? WHY?

It's something i cant get over.

Everyone of the arguements againist smoking are valid, but if you are an adult you are making that choice to knowingly enter a place with smoke, much you would be making the decision to smoke. I dont see the diference. It all about choices, lifes about choices, smoking and non smoking are about choices, exposing yourself to second hand smoke is a choce.

All the reasson to CDC lists as the detraments of second hand smoke are right, but your gov'ts continue to sell them!!!

They want the cake and eat it to. Its wrong. Ban smokes for good!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 02:04 AM   #52
The Fly
 
babble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lynn Haven, FL
Posts: 145
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Yes exactly babble, yet no one is telling him to stop are they?

Same thing iacrobat. Why pick one problem and not all? Its not the only danger.
I'm not sure you quite understood the point I was making with that last post (or maybe I'm not understanding you?)

The point I was trying to make with the comparison is that hypocritical actions do not negate the truth of the cause one is fighting for. Or in other words, just because someone may eat a Big-Mac every day and never excercise, does not mean that their fighting for the right to breathe clean air is any less of a worthy cause.

Yes, second-hand cigarette smoke isn't the only danger, but do you really believe that we need to tackle all problems at once, or not at all, in order to be fair? And who exactly are we trying to be fair to?
__________________
babble is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 03:40 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Ban smoking altogether? What a laugh. Say hello to a massive underground market should that happen.

Or do you think people will just quit like good little drones?

That's the trouble with sweeping generalisations.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 05:12 AM   #54
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonoman
It kills everyone, why are our gov't still selling them? WHY?
I actually don't think that is true

if you really enjoy a smoke and you are able to do it in moderation (key word) then it isn't bad for you
as far as I'm aware there are even scientists who state that anything that gives you pleasure (again, in moderation) in the end is beneficial to your health

I don't think 3 cigarettes a day or whatever (I don't smoke so don't ask me) will cause you long cancer
and if you feel miserable withot them you're better off smoking


if second hand smoking indeed causes more health issues than alcohol related incidents or pollution because of automobiles then it makes sense to attack this issue first

now it seems like it's a bit of a random action aimed at a group that (compared to the automobile industry for example) arent that important to the government anyway
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 07:11 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Mullen-Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Antonio/Austin, TX
Posts: 4,951
Local Time: 04:29 AM
LOL Bono...He's got some balls lol

And here in Maryland with the pollution of cars and stuff we have to get ours checked every 2 years and actually... I went to get mine done last week and it like failed LOL but I have to get it fixed within 6 months or I can't drive my car.
__________________
Mullen-Girl is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 10:05 AM   #56
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Yes exactly babble, yet no one is telling him to stop are they?

Same thing iacrobat. Why pick one problem and not all? Its not the only danger.
I think I answered that in my last post.

You pick one problem because you can, it's viable, like I said, do what you can with what you have.

Angela, you are still arguing extremes.

And Bonoman, don't give me this BS about CHOOSING to breathe second hand smoke. What choice do I have when there is second hand smoke in every bar? And please don't tell me to open my own bar.

Banning smoking in bars is not a perfect solution, but I think its a good compromise.
__________________
iacrobat is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 10:33 AM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Yes exactly babble, yet no one is telling him to stop are they?

Same thing iacrobat. Why pick one problem and not all? Its not the only danger.
The "you can't address one unless you address them all" argument does not make sense.

Since we do not have unlimited resources, we are always forced to select the issues and matters we address.

There are many personal activities that create a danger to self and others. We cannot ban or control them all. It is perfectly reasonable to select smoking as the issue to address today.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 10:36 AM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonoman
Is everyone here for banning smokes altogether? Please say yes. Oh but the gov't would never do that because of the taxes it generates.

It kills everyone, why are our gov't still selling them? WHY?
Ban sales, hell our government still subsidizes the production of tobacco! It is the classic paradox of government wasting money on both sides of an issue.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-08-2004, 09:22 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
I don't think 3 cigarettes a day or whatever (I don't smoke so don't ask me) will cause you long cancer
and if you feel miserable withot them you're better off smoking
ONE smoke a day is bad for you, that's all it takes.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-09-2004, 04:43 AM   #60
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 10:29 AM
On a side note, because it has come up in this thread, I saw this in the Toronto Star. The Ontario provincial government wants to tax fast food.

[Q]More sales tax on your burger?
Fast food to get 8% provincial levy

Food industry opposes move

CAROLINE MALLAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF

The Ontario government is getting ready to slap its sales tax on fast food and other cheap restaurant meals.

The restaurant industry says it has been told to expect the addition of the 8 per cent tax to meals under $4 in next month's provincial budget.

A Liberal source said a "fat tax" on junk food such as hamburgers and fries is in keeping with a strategy of curbing escalating health-care costs and adolescent obesity rates.

The provincial sales tax already applies to restaurant meals over $4.

The 7 per cent federal goods and services tax applies to all restaurant meals.

The industry, which includes fast-food giants such as McDonald's and Burger King, says small businesses such as ice cream stands and school cafeterias will be hardest hit by the new tax on meals $4 or less.

"These are mom and pop shops that we're talking about; they represent 63 per cent of our members," said Terry Mundell, president of the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association.

The association will launch an advertising campaign on Wednesday to oppose the move, which the government estimates will bring in $200 million more a year.

Mundell said the industry estimates the new tax will cost the industry $214 million, which will translate into lost jobs and less corporate tax money in government coffers.

He added that poorer Ontarians who stop at a doughnut shop for a sandwich, an apple and a milk at lunch will be paying an extra tax.

"The bigger picture here is you are penalizing those who can least afford it," he said.

The industry is arguing it has already been hard hit by government policy this year because of an increase in the minimum wage, the lifting of the cap on business property taxes, the scrapping of a planned capital tax cut and higher hydro rates.

The Liberals are grappling with a projected $5.6 billion deficit. [/Q]
__________________

__________________
iacrobat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com