Posts: 4446
Threads: 87
Joined: December 2, 2009
Reputation:
47
RE: Ban
July 23, 2010 at 12:32 am
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2010 at 12:35 am by tackattack.)
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Posts: 412
Threads: 15
Joined: July 4, 2010
Reputation:
4
RE: Ban
July 23, 2010 at 6:50 am
Some people don't want to be segregated.
Posts: 4446
Threads: 87
Joined: December 2, 2009
Reputation:
47
RE: Ban
July 23, 2010 at 6:56 am
segregation in the sense I use it here isn't for some trivial social or political BS. Nor is it for an unreasonable purpose like skin color or beliefs. I'm talking about for saaafety's sake, similar to not allowing pedophiles to live near schools. It's not healthy for either and a recipe for disaster. If you had a buisness where you had 2 types of customers, both equally profitable, would you choose to cut your profts in half? If the 2 types of customers you had were people who liked to light themselves on fire and those that didn't wouldn't you see benefit in seperating them?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Posts: 412
Threads: 15
Joined: July 4, 2010
Reputation:
4
RE: Ban
July 23, 2010 at 7:13 am
Tackattack -
Segregation is fine if it's absolutely necessary, ie for safety, and in certain circumstances, I'm just saying in general, smokers and non smokers don't enjoy each other's company any less because of the difference between them, and some non smokers actually like a bit of smoke around them. Essentially I agree with you.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
132
RE: Ban
July 23, 2010 at 8:09 am
Smoking does harm to non-smokers as well as smokers. That's the problem
Posts: 4446
Threads: 87
Joined: December 2, 2009
Reputation:
47
RE: Ban
July 24, 2010 at 12:29 am
Banned? Wonder why? Anywho, I agree EvF ,and a lot of non-smokers are well informed of that fact and like stated previously your freedom stops at my nose (Love that line). I think the main proble isn't smoking or not, it's limiting of proprieters rights to serve whom and how they serve, and grossly limiting the freedoms of one group in favor of another.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Posts: 48
Threads: 3
Joined: June 30, 2010
Reputation:
0
RE: Ban
July 25, 2010 at 8:32 am
Where I live a lot of the pubs have changed so much since we had a smoking ban back in 2007. The antismokers tried to make us all believe that most of the population were all for it, and they promised that hordes of nonsmokers would suddenly flock into pubs and that they would all thrive as a result of this new clintelle.
The reality is that it's been an utter disaster. When I walk past pubs, instead of seeing happy customers inside, enjoying themselves, what I see is people standing outside in all weathers, while the pub itself remains empty. It's just so pointless, pubs are for adults, grown ups to indulge in the legal vices of their choice. Smoking goes hand in hand with drinking (for smokers, of course) and if you force them outside to smoke (and yes it is effectively forcing them) it creates mass inconvenience and a tende atmosphere, you can't relax properly. If you smoke, you spend half your timeoutside, and if you don't, you spend half your time either waiting for your smoking friends to return, or you go out and join them and then when you go back in you've lost your seat. It's the most ridiculous setup.
The government originally promised that pubs would be exempt from the ban, and at the last minute they did a u turn. At first, the antismokers denied that pubs were suffering, and over time it's becoem clear that they have, what with 50 or so pubs closing down each week. And now they're saying that it's because of cheap supermarket booze or the recession or the weather, and those are all lies. Supermarket booze has always been cheaper than pub booze, and people are always prepared to pay a premium for a pub atmosphere just like with restaurant food. The recession is another excuse as pubgoers have always been able to manage to afford going to the pub no matter what the economy is doing. And the weather is the silliest excuse since the weather has always done what it's done and it has never dissauded anyone before.
