If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Pub owner faces charges when, after nationwide smoking ban that forced his customers to smoke outside, their smoke drifted into nearby yard and destroyed "natural smell of fresh air"   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 152
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5296 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2007 at 6:45 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-10-27 11:53:31 AM
People need to stop being pussies. 'Cancer' is everywhere not just in smoke, for fark sakes.
 
2007-10-27 12:07:43 PM
people_are_chumps: People need to stop being pussies. 'Cancer' is everywhere not just in smoke, for fark sakes.

You, my friend are wrong. Cancer is only where we can increase taxes under the radar and vilify people to our financial gain.

And it smells.
As I'm told....
 
2007-10-27 12:11:02 PM
"Nobody forces you to enter a bar that allows smoking. You can excercise your choice and avoid it entirely and nobody would try to take that choice from you"

Where am I supposed to go on a Friday night when *all* the bars have smokers in them?

What about the people who work in the bars? Is it also their choice to "not work"?

As a non-smoker I should be able to do anything considered "normal" without having smokers around me. Before these new laws I was surrounded by smoke pretty much *everywhere* except outdoors or in my own home.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see why smokers can't set up their own bars ... but the *balance of power* definitely had to swing towards the non smokers.

Here in Spain there's new laws which say that all bars/restaurants have to have more than half of their area dedicated to non smokers, and that it must be impossible for any smoke to enter the non-smoking area. "All the smokers down the far end" isn't good enough and neither is a door which belches smoke every time somebody goes through it.

The layout also has to be such that non-smokers never have to pass through a smoking area (eg. to go to the toilet) and non-smoking staff shouldn't be required to enter the smoking area.

This seems a better compromise than a total ban.
 
2007-10-27 12:14:19 PM
thats why everbody should just smoke pot.....youll still get the same first reaction of "hey whos smoking" but instead of "ahh i cant stand it", itll be more like "hey thats good shiat"
 
2007-10-27 12:14:41 PM
>> "Smoke doesn't smell 20 metres away"
>"You can tell a smoker said that. I can smell a single smoker at 50 metres."

What he said.

I can tell you when my neighbors are smoking in their garden.
 
2007-10-27 12:19:15 PM
>"the former smoking garden should become the "all you can
> eat sausage and cabbage garden".

I think you'll find the law applies to all smells, not just cigarette smoke. If you run a business which makes smells and somebody complains, you have to stop doing it.

I'm a *computer programmer* and I have to have a "no-smells" license to be able to work at home.
 
2007-10-27 12:24:54 PM
FarkinFarker: Letting the proprietor choose to allow smoking inside his own business is too much for some people to fathom.


that was the old system, i knew of a few pubs (mostly gastro-pubs) where they banned smoking and stayed afloat, but this was only a select few because most pubs would lose business to the pub next door who would let them smoke - everybody has at least one mate who wants to light up, so even if the owner wanted to he couldn't ban smoking for fear of loss of business, the most logical course was for the gov to ban it in favour of the 70% of pub patrons who don't smoke

/not particularly anti-smoking and wouldn't accept a total ban but this measure seemed the best option to me
 
2007-10-27 12:31:46 PM
As I light up a Macanudo Portofino with a lighter made from snail darter skulls, I make a fervent wish that Britain is invaded and obliterated by Lichtenstein. The 'nose police' should either spend their time squirting Fabreeze up diesel tailpipes or forced to wear garlands of Limberger 'round their necks. If I were the bar owner, I'd order a ton of fresh manure to be dropped in my neighbors back yard. Unless you're President, we never promised you a rose garden.
 
2007-10-27 12:51:36 PM
Boy, if unpleasant smells become illegal, New Jersey is screwed!
 
2007-10-27 01:02:25 PM
Joce678
"Nobody forces you to enter a bar that allows smoking. You can excercise your choice and avoid it entirely and nobody would try to take that choice from you"

Where am I supposed to go on a Friday night when *all* the bars have smokers in them?


You'd think if there was a business case for creating a non-smoking bar, some smart entrepreneur would have started one. Nothing prevented a person from opening a no-smoking bar. Nothing.

Instead, the choice is now removed by mandate.

Where is a person who enjoys a cigar after dinner supposed to go on a Friday night when *all* the bars are non-smoking? You have removed that option from them.

What about the people who work in the bars? Is it also their choice to "not work"?

Why, yes, they do have the choice to work in a non-smoking bar. If, of course, some smart entrepreneur were to start one.

Let's take the case of a vegan or PETA aficionado. They have the choice to not work in a place that serves meat.
 
2007-10-27 01:03:12 PM
Sammy Jenkins: Churchill2004:
Guess what- you don't own the restaurants, pubs, and bars. Just because you it inconveniences you doesn't mean you get to pass a law against it.

Yeah, cancer...what an INCONVENIENCE.


The inconvenience occurs when you have to decide whether you want to enter the private establishment or not.

If people are doing things on private property you disapprove of stay out of the damn bar. Bars aren't a public space; I'm all for not smoking in public places where you have no choice. These laws are just an example of people legislating away behavior they don't approve of in complete disregard to the rights of others

As for the smoke... I can guarantee you there are more cancerous particles in the air from the local highway than from six people smoking twenty meters away. Probably by a factor of a couple hundred (would you rather smoke six cigarettes or inhale from a muffler for the equivalent ten minutes, now consider the sheer difference in outputted volume...) , I don't see us banning residential roads.
 
2007-10-27 01:05:09 PM
One of the small joys of my life is cruising around in my F-250, smoking a good quality cigar. Every once in a while I come up to a stoplight, next to some neurotic, self-hating, whiney asshole driving a Prius or something similar. And, as I sit there, idling high-octane exhaust fumes and stogie smoke into his open windows, I often hear a "hrmumph!" I then gaze down from my elevated position, wave and smile at his retarded frowning children, and blow a huge cloud of fragrant cigar smoke in their direction.

Life is good.
 
2007-10-27 01:07:42 PM
biglot: Said it before, and it bears repeating.


CIGARETTE SMOKE STINKS
AND IT STINKS UP
EVERYTHING
IT
COMES INTO
CONTACT
WITH


My apartment occasionally smells like a smoker lives in it because a smoker does live next door. It is very annoying.
 
2007-10-27 01:16:35 PM
Joce678
I think you'll find the law applies to all smells, not just cigarette smoke. If you run a business which makes smells and somebody complains, you have to stop doing it.

I'm a *computer programmer* and I have to have a "no-smells" license to be able to work at home.



So essentially with the idiocy of this law, a chocolate maker could be put out of business by a person next door being biatchy and complaining about the smell of chocolate in the air.

Yeah....nothing at all wrong with that at all.
 
2007-10-27 01:21:19 PM
biglot: Said it before, and it bears repeating.
CIGARETTE SMOKE STINKS PERFUME, COLOGNE AND AFTERSHAVE STINK
AND IT STINKS STINK UP
EVERYTHING
IT THEY
COMES COME INTO
CONTACT
WITH

AND THEY NEED TO BE BANNED.

FIFY.
 
2007-10-27 01:36:48 PM
Churchill2004: Simple solution- let them smoke inside if the business owner is willing to allow it.

Yeh! That's a good solution. And lets let construction sites allow workers and visitors not to wear hard hats! Ooh! Ooh! I know -- lets let private businesses require workers to change lightbulbs out of their reach, but only provide them a swivel chair on wheels to do it! It's a private business, after all -- the owner should be allowed to do what he wants!

Here's a better solution. If you're the only person who WORKS in your pub, then you can let people smoke whatever the hell they want, so long as the patrons know it's happening. As soon as you employ someone, you have to provide a safe working environment. Everyone else has to do it. Pubs and restaurants received a pass for 35 years in the US (not sure about England). It's about farking time the laws are applied to them.
(And no, as an employee you don't have the right to voluntarily accept unsafe working conditions under any other circumstances. So, again, pubs and restaurants -- Welcome to 1970.)
 
2007-10-27 01:44:51 PM
Sammy Jenkins

I love how your post was the worst douchbag post and you are telling other people to be considerate.

Lighten up Francis.
 
2007-10-27 01:46:40 PM
"...smoking ban that forced his customers to smoke outside.."

Or, you know, you could just not smoke for like, 2 hours while you're out in public.

Fukking weak willed stinky fukkers.
 
2007-10-27 02:00:55 PM
Joce678: "Nobody forces you to enter a bar that allows smoking. You can excercise your choice and avoid it entirely and nobody would try to take that choice from you"

Where am I supposed to go on a Friday night when *all* the bars have smokers in them?

What about the people who work in the bars? Is it also their choice to "not work"?

As a non-smoker I should be able to do anything considered "normal" without having smokers around me. Before these new laws I was surrounded by smoke pretty much *everywhere* except outdoors or in my own home.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see why smokers can't set up their own bars ... but the *balance of power* definitely had to swing towards the non smokers.


As a white male, I should be able to do anything considered "normal" without having black folks around me. Before these new laws I was surrounded by negroes pretty much *everywhere* except outdoors or in my own home.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see why coloreds can't set up their own bars ... but the *balance of power* definitely had to swing toward the white people.

Hmm...

Seriously, though, we (smokers) had our own bars. Then the anti-smoking nazis took them away.

Where can you go on a Friday night where there aren't any smokers? Good question. You can find an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. We have one in my city. It's a brewery, though, not a bar. The other places that tried to go smoke free on certain nights lost business, so they no longer have smoke free nights. There is *no* market for non-smoking establishments.

As for people who work in bars, yes, they can choose to not work at a bar. There are other jobs to be had.

Here in Spain there's new laws which say that all bars/restaurants have to have more than half of their area dedicated to non smokers, and that it must be impossible for any smoke to enter the non-smoking area. "All the smokers down the far end" isn't good enough and neither is a door which belches smoke every time somebody goes through it.

The layout also has to be such that non-smokers never have to pass through a smoking area (eg. to go to the toilet) and non-smoking staff shouldn't be required to enter the smoking area.

This seems a better compromise than a total ban.


It has the effect of being a near total ban. I like this compromise: let the market decide. Let business owners determine for themselves what types of perfectly legal activities they will allow in their business establishments. If there's enough of a demand for non-smoking bars, then those bars will open up.

/don't hold your breath.
 
2007-10-27 02:02:18 PM
people_are_chumps

I agree. Here is a though. Exposure to the sun causes cancer!!! Lets ban the Sun!!! It is for the children, you know.

What about the whiny biatches and their cars. I think they need to ride a bike to work. Try being stuck in a traffic jam every day in Phoenix. I hate the second hand smoke statistics. How can they tell the people did not die from sitting in traffic for two hours a day/5 days a week. The inhale more wicked shiat doing that than from second hand smoke.
 
2007-10-27 02:04:50 PM
I had a friend once, who was scared of getting cancer, so he quit smoking weed, and wouldn't hang out with me because I smoke ciggerettes, he started eating strictly organic, and refused to go anywhere where he could be exposed to smoke.

You know what happened to him? he died of cancer at 23.

/worrying about cancer gives you cancer
//no fat chicks in my bar, because they smell bad and are a health risk
///anyone who begs to differ has never slept with a fat chick
 
2007-10-27 02:05:45 PM
MacGabhain

I also think we should be required to provide a safe working enviornment for Cops, Firefighters, soldiers. Lets go pass some more laws. You are far more likely to get killed by a robber working at a convience store than you are by second hand smoke working in a bar.
 
2007-10-27 02:14:53 PM
AntiNorm: SMOKING THREAD!!1!


Churchill2004: Simple solution- let them smoke inside if the business owner is willing to allow it.

And severely restrict the choices of those who wish to go out but who do not want to breathe that crap? No thanks.


If there were a market for non-smoking bars, some genius entrepreneur would have opened one.
 
2007-10-27 02:30:32 PM
Macular Degenerate: If I lived next to a bar with these retards puffing outside all night long I'd be filing complaints too feeling pretty farking stupid about voting for the law to push them outside.

FTFY.

keep pushing motherfarkers, the smokers will start pushing back.
 
2007-10-27 02:31:34 PM
I don't like being in the same room as someone who is smoking because the smell causes my clothing to stink. I really hate that smell. In my city smoking is not allowed in any bars or restaurants. It's nice to be able to go into any bar or restaurant without having to consider if there is smoking or not. The "private property" argument makes sense but I don't really care enough about smoker's rights to oppose smoking bans.

One thing that I have never understood is why so many smokers throw their cigarette butts on the ground. It's ridiculous, why do these people think that that is in anyway acceptable.
 
2007-10-27 02:36:00 PM
Torok: The "private property" argument makes sense but I don't really care enough about smoker's rights to oppose smoking bans.

It's not about "smoker's rights", and it never has been. It's about the rights of the property owner.
 
2007-10-27 02:52:21 PM
LOL @ stupid law.

Guess what, pretty much everything causes cancer, the sun, car exhaust, background radiation, the process of cooking food, chemicald leeching from varnished wood, radiation produced by radioactive elements in marble, etc...

Carcinogens from exhaled smoke is nothing.
 
2007-10-27 02:57:26 PM
Torok: I don't like being in the same room as someone who is smoking because the smell causes my clothing to stink. I really hate that smell. In my city smoking is not allowed in any bars or restaurants. It's nice to be able to go into any bar or restaurant without having to consider if there is smoking or not. The "private property" argument makes sense but I don't really care enough about smoker's rights to oppose smoking bans.

One thing that I have never understood is why so many smokers throw their cigarette butts on the ground. It's ridiculous, why do these people think that that is in anyway acceptable.


I throw mine on the ground in cities that have indoor smoking bans because they pushed me outside, so they can deal with the mess from me not having anywhere else to put my butts. It's not acceptable, but neither is the rancor directed against smokers.

Cities with no bans, well... I smoke indoors, where there are ashtrays aplenty. When walking from place to place, I throw them in a public trash can.

Churchill2004: Torok: The "private property" argument makes sense but I don't really care enough about smoker's rights to oppose smoking bans.

It's not about "smoker's rights", and it never has been. It's about the rights of the property owner.


Exactly, and where does it stop? I am willing to bet that MADD is taking notes from the anti-smoking zealots...
 
2007-10-27 02:59:31 PM
I would say let them smoke inside. If the owner of the establishment doesnt mind losing business to the people that care so much about it then thats his choice.
 
2007-10-27 03:23:31 PM
people seem to forget that smoking bans indoors didn't come about as a right for non-smokers, but to protect the people who worked indoors (smokers and non) who were being exposed to extremely high and concentrated levels of second hand smoke for entire shifts.

it came about as a way to regulate a safe working environment.

/most smokers are dicks when it comes to throwing their butts away.
 
2007-10-27 03:33:20 PM
Melchior: people seem to forget that smoking bans indoors didn't come about as a right for non-smokers, but to protect the people who worked indoors (smokers and non) who were being exposed to extremely high and concentrated levels of second hand smoke for entire shifts.

it came about as a way to regulate a safe working environment.

/most smokers are dicks when it comes to throwing their butts away.


What, requiring proper ventilation doesn't work?
 
2007-10-27 04:41:28 PM
darksands
If the owner of the establishment doesnt mind losing business to the people that care so much about it then thats his choice.

Given a choice, a tavern owner will almost invariably chose to allow smoking. It is rarely about freedom from or freedom of this or that. It is about money.
 
2007-10-27 04:58:33 PM
YoggiSothoth: darksands
If the owner of the establishment doesnt mind losing business to the people that care so much about it then thats his choice.

Given a choice, a tavern owner will almost invariably chose to allow smoking. It is rarely about freedom from or freedom of this or that. It is about money.


It is about freedom- the freedom of a business owner to make money. That is, after all, the whole point of a business.

Of course bars aren't going to choose to be non-smoking. The number of smokers who go to bars far outnumbers the number of sufficiently offended non-smokers who go to bars. There are plenty of other examples of public pressure forcing business establishments to go non-smoking, though. Look at fast food restaurants- they've been non-smoking for years. Same goes for most office buildings.
 
2007-10-27 05:24:38 PM
Actually, I believe your body has to have cancer genes for one to get cancer. If you do have the gene, then you will probably get cancer, period.
 
2007-10-27 05:38:44 PM
I'm not a smoker, but I should pick up the habbit just to blow smoke in the faces of farkers like Sammy Jenkins. Then piss on them....
 
2007-10-27 05:41:07 PM
Smokers should do us all a favor by committing mass-suicide. Ash sucking degenerates.
 
2007-10-27 05:49:16 PM
Smoking is a dirty, disgusting habit, but banning it anywhere except small, enclosed areas is retarded. Sure, smoking stinks, but so do landfills, and people live near those too. Are they allowed to sue the landfill? No.
 
2007-10-27 06:21:36 PM
"Smoke doesn't smell 20 metres away"
>"You can tell a smoker said that. I can smell a single smoker at 50 metres."


I can smell skanky perfume from the next town.
 
2007-10-27 06:51:30 PM
Mmm, smell the sanctimony.

Really, people.
 
2007-10-27 07:09:53 PM
Sammy Jenkins: Churchill2004:
Guess what- you don't own the restaurants, pubs, and bars. Just because you it inconveniences you doesn't mean you get to pass a law against it.

Yeah, cancer...what an INCONVENIENCE.


If you don't own the property, you shouldn't be making the rules on it.
 
2007-10-27 07:55:38 PM
twat_waffle: I throw mine on the ground in cities that have indoor smoking bans because they pushed me outside, so they can deal with the mess from me not having anywhere else to put my butts. It's not acceptable, but neither is the rancor directed against smokers.

Surprisingly you are not the type of person that most annoys me. Even though you do sometimes throw cigarette butts on the ground. The reason is that you admit that it is wrong. What makes me mad is the people that are so ignorant that they don't think it's wrong or even a problem.

You're still kind of an ass for littering. Your attempt at protesting the law only affects the ordinary citizens and the city employees who have to clean it up. You should really direct your displeasure at the people who make the laws.

/If you ever decide to quit I guarantee you will later consider it to be one of the best decisions you have ever made.
 
2007-10-27 07:58:32 PM
For the record, I don't like smoke and will avoid smoke filled places. However, if an owner wants to allow smoking in their establishment, then let them. This whole "no smoking anywhere" is an excuse to fine people and have the health insurance lobby promise more money to politicians.

If you can't stand smoke like me, vote with your cash and go elsewhere. A lot of places are smoke free voluntarily. Just because someone stinks you can't make laws against them.
 
2007-10-27 08:11:17 PM
IF it is as he says and there are only 6 or 7 people outside at a time smoking CIGARETTES not CIGARS (HUGE difference in smell range)then I don't really see a problem with it (though natural wind tunnels might direct straight to this persons house, if so then buffer it with something)
I usually start having troubles when I am about 10ft away from cigarette smoke (hard to breath,start tasting it) cigar smoke/smell is just enough to almost want to make me lose my lunch,while not breathing at the same time.
Grew up with smokers,and almost stepdad that LOVED his cigars (not the cheap crap either, actual cubans that as a greek he could go and get)
 
2007-10-27 08:13:16 PM
Rurouni: Smokers should do us all a favor by committing mass-suicide. Ash sucking degenerates.

You know what really degenerates? Wishing that a whole group of people would kill themselves because you disapprove of their lifestyle. That, my friend, is all kinds of crass.
 
2007-10-27 08:28:42 PM
Torok: /If you ever decide to quit I guarantee you will later consider it to be one of the best decisions you have ever made

Wait long enough - he'll quit.

Everybody does.

/humming 'Another One Bites The Dust'
 
2007-10-27 08:31:32 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2007-10-27 09:16:30 PM
"a chocolate maker could be put out of business by a person next door being biatchy and complaining about the smell of chocolate in the air."

If I was playing my stereo too loud 24/7 you'd see no problem with people calling the cops to complain about it. Smells are no different than noise. The person making the smell should accommodate the rest of the world - not the other way around.

Smokers should be tolerating the non-smokers, not the other way around. Smoking is self inflicted. If you can't go a couple of hours without smoking then that's your problem.

You're smug now, lighting up with that big poo-eating grin on your face. Enjoy it while you can, the laws are coming and you WILL lose this one. :-)
 
2007-10-27 10:21:36 PM
Joce678: "Nobody forces you to enter a bar that allows smoking. You can excercise your choice and avoid it entirely and nobody would try to take that choice from you"

Where am I supposed to go on a Friday night when *all* the bars have smokers in them?

What about the people who work in the bars? Is it also their choice to "not work"?

As a non-smoker I should be able to do anything considered "normal" without having smokers around me. Before these new laws I was surrounded by smoke pretty much *everywhere* except outdoors or in my own home.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see why smokers can't set up their own bars ... but the *balance of power* definitely had to swing towards the non smokers.

Here in Spain there's new laws which say that all bars/restaurants have to have more than half of their area dedicated to non smokers, and that it must be impossible for any smoke to enter the non-smoking area. "All the smokers down the far end" isn't good enough and neither is a door which belches smoke every time somebody goes through it.

The layout also has to be such that non-smokers never have to pass through a smoking area (eg. to go to the toilet) and non-smoking staff shouldn't be required to enter the smoking area.

This seems a better compromise than a total ban.


Nice compromise, in a 'separate but equal' kind of way, only less equal.

Let's eliminate all chance of contamination by us filthy degenerates who smoke in places we drink ourselves stupid:
i33.photobucket.com
It worked so well before.
 
2007-10-27 10:45:13 PM
The business owner rights is vaguely amusing...
Here the majority of such poor infringed upon business owners started the lobby for the non-smoking laws in the first place. Their business greatly increased and they've been pretty vocal supporting the laws. One non-smoking business isn't enough for a draw. Being confident you could go out where you want was - at least here.
 
2007-10-28 11:57:00 AM
Bad_Seed: Sammy Jenkins: Yeah, cancer...what an INCONVENIENCE.

You've got cancer? Quick, somebody call a

www.encyclopediadramatica.com
www.jargonchicago.com
/I can has toilet stop?
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report