Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    I am?
    Sorry if I've confused you with someone else. I know that there is a 'wannabee medic' on this forum who admitted to smoking before. Perhaps I'm thinking of danmushman? :confused:
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by NikNak)
    I agree, people who do not like smokey environments should be more selective in where they go. As Vienna95 says, the vast majority of establishments are either non-smoking or provide a non-smoking area.
    I really don't mind smoking (don't see the point but far be it from me to tell someone else how they may or may not kill themselves)...but lately I've started developing signs of allergy to cigarette smoke, even in a not very smoky pub last week my eyes started itching (the same as they do in summer with my recently developed hayfever :mad: ), but only after someone started smoking nearby (and not close enough for the smell or the smoke to actually bother me).

    I would have quite happily moved to the no smoking section (although we'd bagsied the big comfy couch and the no smoking section was full of school chairs) but I was out with my husband (who's a wheelchair user)...and of course the no smoking section was handily up 4 steps so it was a choice between putting up with the itching or sitting on my own. I put up with it for a while but after about an hour it got too much and we had to leave early.

    I don't want a ban...but if pubs and bars want to keep their staff out of a smokey environment and provide a smoke free environment for people who prefer it *and* provide a comfortable space for all their customer smokers and non smokers all it it takes is some decent ventilation (and air filters are cheap - we've got a £40 filter in our spare room which is able to remove all trace of our 6 cannabis plants).

    At the moment I'm fed up though - trying to find accessable pubs is bad enough but if I'm going to end up not only stinking of fag smoke at the end of the day but with my eyes half clawed out (or having to use anti-histamines all year round which is going to be counterproductive because they'll just become less effective quicker) then going out is starting to become a chore instead of something we do for fun
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Sorry if I've confused you with someone else. I know that there is a 'wannabee medic' on this forum who admitted to smoking before. Perhaps I'm thinking of danmushman? :confused:
    Could be, but it's certainly not me - smoking costs too much money for me to ever consider it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommypip)
    I don't think smoking should be banned in public places. The risk of contracting a cancer by passive smoking is very low, and I just think that it would lead to trouble. Stopping smoking on planes has been blamed for an increase in air rage. I don't want to press the point to strongly because I'm not actually a smoker myself but I thought it'd be good to get a debate going!
    The risk of nuclear warfare is very low, but does that mean that the risk should be ignored?
    If it even saves a single life, then it is totally worth doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    If it even saves a single life, then it is totally worth doing.
    Not if it costs a lot of money, it isn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Not if it costs a lot of money, it isn't.
    It would gain money, not spend it. Because the law would end up making people pay a fine, which will go straight back into Tony Blair's back pocket!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    It would gain money, not spend it. Because the law would end up making people pay a fine, which will go straight back into Tony Blair's back pocket!
    Aah, cunning. But I doubt that such a fine could ever compare to the huge amounts of tax that smokers pay.

    It is estimated that, if smoking is banned, then the middle classes would have to pay twice as much tax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Aah, cunning. But I doubt that such a fine could ever compare to the huge amounts of tax that smokers pay.

    It is estimated that, if smoking is banned, then the middle classes would have to pay twice as much tax.
    Yeah... Maybe they'll introduce a not smoking tax as well, so either way your paying them money!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    Yeah... Maybe they'll introduce a not smoking tax as well, so either way your paying them money!
    Hmm... a 'not smoking' tax... interesting...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Hmm... a 'not smoking' tax... interesting...
    Well yeah, and it'd probably work too. But then people would start smoking not to be taxed, which would mean they are still being taxed on the cigarettes.
    But the downside would be the increased number of people going into the NHS for smoking related illnesses, which would be expensive...

    Maybe they should tax smoking related illnesses as well then!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    Well yeah, and it'd probably work too. But then people would start smoking not to be taxed, which would mean they are still being taxed on the cigarettes.
    But the downside would be the increased number of people going into the NHS for smoking related illnesses, which would be expensive...

    Maybe they should tax smoking related illnesses as well then!
    Hehe.

    An ideal solution would be to privatise the NHS - that way all the diseased smokers will have to pay for themselves - and the government can cash in on it!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Hehe.

    An ideal solution would be to privatise the NHS - that way all the diseased smokers will have to pay for themselves - and the government can cash in on it!
    Thats something though that the labour government has promised not to do...
    That means it'll be in place in a few months!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    Thats something though that the labour government has promised not to do...
    That means it'll be in place in a few months!
    Touche. I'm all for it - it won't affect me that much as I have more money than I'll ever need.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Touche. I'm all for it - it won't affect me that much as I have more money than I'll ever need.
    But aren't you going to use that to help the war orphans?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iluvatar)
    But aren't you going to use that to help the war orphans?
    Well, I suppose. But it would do much more good if I don't give it away right now... If I just leave it where it is in a high-interest account, then soon enough I'll have enough money to help everybody...
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Could be, but it's certainly not me - smoking costs too much money for me to ever consider it.
    (Original post by Mr White)
    it won't affect me that much as I have more money than I'll ever need
    :huh:

    Although I'm glad I'm not the only person who was put off smoking because of the cost...at 13 I much preferred to spend my money on chocolate. In fact at 24 I'd much prefer to spend my money on chocolate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    :huh:

    Although I'm glad I'm not the only person who was put off smoking because of the cost...at 13 I much preferred to spend my money on chocolate. In fact at 24 I'd much prefer to spend my money on chocolate.
    Yeah, i know what you mean. I smoked for a few weeks, but then i thought, whats the point?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Well, I suppose. But it would do much more good if I don't give it away right now... If I just leave it where it is in a high-interest account, then soon enough I'll have enough money to help everybody...
    Hmm... good plan!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    :huh:

    Although I'm glad I'm not the only person who was put off smoking because of the cost...at 13 I much preferred to spend my money on chocolate. In fact at 24 I'd much prefer to spend my money on chocolate.
    I prefer not to spend money. A little figure on a bank statement makes me feel much more content than any other material things ever could.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NikNak)
    I agree, people who do not like smokey environments should be more selective in where they go. As Vienna95 says, the vast majority of establishments are either non-smoking or provide a non-smoking area.

    well, people who dont smoke want to go to shopping centres or just into town and they have to breathe in smoke, wehter they choose to or not as sum places do not offer non smoking areas such as large shopping centres or genael towns.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.