What is Digg?216 Comments
- tornragged, on 10/11/2007, -5/+54The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,013 people died in 2003 in "alcohol-related" collisions, representing 40 percent of total traffic deaths in the US. So lets nix the "alcohol only kills the drinker" theory.
- lifenstein, on 05/30/2009, -27/+45Banning Smoking is a smarter choice than banning alcohol for two reasons:
1) Smoking also hurts those around the smoker, whereas alcohol only kills the drinker. - so, better for citizens;
2) The beverage industry contributes much more than the tobacco industry through sales tax. - so, better for the country.
Smoking doesn't make people lose control over themselves though.. - Dominatus, on 10/11/2007, -19/+35Who forces people to go to pubs? Since there's been pubs they've been a place to smoke and drink. If you don't want to experience that, then don't go to a pub. That's the way it works. It's like people being offended by the strippers in a strip club, what do you expect to happen?
Now, because people like to illegalize things they don't like, people will once again be limited in what they can do.
How about this for a solution: Just like a city has a limited number of liquor licenses they sell, have a limited (and smaller) number of smoking licenses. That way, there will always be a guaranteed number of pubs that do not have a smoking license and will allow people who don't want to inhale the second hand smoke a place to go if they so chose, and would not ***** over people who enjoy smoking while they drink. - mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18Wow this seems to be happening everywhere as of recent.. my state (Washington) implemented very strict bans on public smoking a couple years ago. I've heard that even France was developing new laws against it as well.
- Timmyftw, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17Today in Australia a new law has started where smoking is banned from all pubs and clubs. I for one am glad i can go to work tonight and not have to smell smoke my whole shift or clean ash trays.
- redpixie, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15I don't know why the pub trade is so concerned about losing customers now the ban is in place. I moved from the UK to Ireland last year and have become pretty used to the no-smoking policy in restaurants and pubs out here (even though we hardly ever go to a pub as I'm not a fan of alcohol). Out here, pubs and bars are jam packed every night. A lot of bars have smoking areas outside with seating and heating, all of them have wall mounted ash trays close to the pub door.
While I am a smoker, I do not condemn this smoking ban. After all, there is nothing worse than going out for an evening and stinking of smoke within a couple of minutes of entering a packed bar or restaurant. - Eleo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17While I'm all for banning smoking in libraries, airports, and fast food restaurants, I do have a problem with it being banned in bars and restaurants. I think that instead of outright banning it, there should instead be strict regulations on how and where it is allowed; such as the quality of any sort of ventilation that keeps smoke from spreading elsewhere, separation from non-smoking areas, allowing employees the option of not working in smoking areas, etc.
And banning smoking outdoors is absurd. There can't be any significant health risk. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Exactly. Assuming second hand smoke has a real and deleterious effect, smoking (which is legal) hurts those around the smoker, while drinking (which is also legal) only hurts the drinker. Only drunk driving (which is illegal) hurts others around the drinker.
- paranox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Similar rules have just come into effect here in Australia from July 1st.
The only place where smoking is allowed indoors is the High Rollers area at the casino. - LiquidChimera, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11But drinking and driving is already a law
- alexcroox, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14(im not a smoker) I am all for the ban , but there are 2 key things you need think about what this ban will bring about.
1) Children and other family members at home will be far more likely to either become passive smokers or be effected by this "killer" second hand smoke. Think about it, if people cant smoke down the pub then they are going to spend far more time smoking at home!!
2) As horrible a smell as smoke is, it masks far worse smells. ive spoken to mates from scotland and other places where smoking is banned. Instead of the pub/club smelling of smoke, he tells me it stinks of vomit, alchohol, B.O and smelly feet!! As much as i hate smoke i know which id prefer!! - benitojuarez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10There are tons of taxes on cigarettes depending on where you are. In my town in the suburbs a pack of cigarettes costs $3.82 , 40 miles east in downtown chicago the same pack costs $8.50 . That difference in price is the difference in tax between DuPage and Cook county.
- Gizza, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11I couldn't believe the difference that made. You really don't realise how much smoke is in pubs and night clubs until you get rid of it. Whenever I went to one of these places I was just use to the dark, hazy atmosphere, and just came to accept that that is what these places looked like. I went to a club a week after the ban and couldn't believe the difference. The place honestly seemed to be about 3 times larger just because the air was so clear. I could breathe in and it was no different to breathing the air outside. And when I got home I didn't need to throw my clothes straight into the wash.
This ban was the best thing to happen to clubs and pubs. - MatttK, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12So how about the people who work at these pubs who are subjected to second hand smoke day after day? Some of them get cancer because of their job. And don't give me the "well they should get a new job" excuse because a lot of people live pay cheque to pay cheque and simply can't afford to quit and look for a new job.
- tnatharik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Singapore also is on track to ban smoking at public places.
- blorc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Drinking is only bad for your body in excess. Smoking is bad for you (and others around you) no matter what. I wonder how many smokers in this thread also complain about the costs of health care. That would be deliciously ironic.
- mastercheif, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9They've had these laws in New York for years now. It's odd going to other states and being asked "smoking or non-smoking?"
- orangester, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13And the clouds are finally removed from the skies of England as a result.
- pHr34kY, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8..that would explain the warning label on the Cigarette packets in Australia:
"Your smoking Harms Others
- Surgeon General" - kodek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10*****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke - Niddik, on 10/11/2007, -12/+19I'd go for lasting health over temporary pleasure any day.
- plokij909, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Reducing the burden on the public medical system (i.e. your tax dollars) due to the reduction of cancer cases ... EXCELLENT idea.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Here! It's England. They ban anything they deem unsafe. Appeals to personal freedom do not work over there.
- OUChevelleSS, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8You're still free to CRY MORE NOOB.
- spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10If you could add 8 years to your life expectancy by never listening to music, would you do it? How about 8 years for never watching films? 15 for never having sex?
I'd rather life a short life doing things I enjoy than a long one not. - Promantarius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Are you saying that EVERY employer should implement a smoking area in their business, at their cost, to appease a minority of people that wish to endanger their own health because it feels good? What's the difference between that and forcing every employer to construct worship areas, alcohol areas, gyms, etc. just to appease every individual that works there? They all "relax" the workers, they all make you smell horrible, so why make one a law if you aren't going to do so with the rest?
Smoking is a choice, and nobody has to accommodate that choice when it endangers the health of everyone around you. If you wish to smoke, do it in your own time and in your own home where you aren't able to endanger other people. - Promantarius, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11If you wish to provide a public service you must not endanger the lives of those people that enter your building, regulated by law. Though it may not be like pointing a gun at them and shooting, you are exposing them to health risks of which they have no control over if they enter your store. Before someone counters with the fatty foods argument, note that you have a choice there and can enter a store risk-free.
You could argue that they should find a different store, but you'd have to be an idiot to run a business that deliberately reduces the number of customers you take in because a minority of people wish to pollute the air around them. - alphacorvus, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12Your logic is flawed. Any nonsmoker within 20 feet of you would be deprived of the choice to not inhale smoke.
- sketchthat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Australia has just done the same thing. 30-07-2007 12.00 AM was when everyone inside a enclosed place had to put out their cigarettes
- TheAkolyte, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Back when you didn't have to put one of those confounded spaces after punctuation?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Annnnnd drunk driving is already a crime. See the pattern?
- Mothrog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You don't have a right to enter a business. Ask anyone who's been banned from a bar.
- SAOSiN, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You should do that for your sake, not ours.
- PugFish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If they made you gain weight and smell of greasy food just by being near them when they eat I think you'd change your mind
- fLUx1337, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7"LAST PUBLIC PUFF" - how do you know, their may be non-public puffs out there just waiting to come out about their sexuality!
- Mothrog, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8"Though it may not be like pointing a gun at them and shooting, you are exposing them to health risks of which they have no control over if they enter your store."
They can never enter the store in the first place. If there were in fact economic rewards to making a business non-smoking, it would already be non-smoking. Most people, except for a loud, obnoxious minority, don't care enough to go elsewhere. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12No, you're missing his point. If I want to smoke in my house, I should be allowed, right? Right.
And if I want to allow my friends to smoke in my house, I should be allowed, right? Right.
So why can't I allow my friends/customers to smoke in my house/business? It's private property. Nobody is forcing you to go to a pub. - SAOSiN, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Just because you want to die, doesn't mean I want too.
Don't just think for yourself. - spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12I'm against the ban, business owners should be able to choose for themselves. If people disliked it that much they can quite easily go to non-smoking (by choice) pubs. Failing that then pubs and bars should at least be able to have separate (enclosed, but properly ventilated) smoking areas. There is absolutely no reason why that shouldn't be allowed, and yet it isn't.
- clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Geez, when were they thirty cents a pack? Were we fighting the Kaiser?
- mfratt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Well this is Oceania afterall.
- MikeTheC, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Not sure why businesses would be bitching about it. First off, if the ban is everywhere, nobody can lose business to another restaurant / bar / etc. that has smoking. Second, people are going to go out and drink regardless. I think there's enough factual and anecdotal evidence to prove that. Third, if all that businesses and others can do is complain about drops in revenues and taxes, then it should be evident who's side these individuals and businesses are on.
People want to complain about reductions in "rights" (which I find really absurd in this particular context), but how about freedom from exploitation by businesses who want you to smoke (and ***** your health) because you'll spend more money with them? Doesn't that bother you in the least?
I didn't know that poisoning yourself, your children, other family members and friends, co-workers and the like was an activity which deserved any kind of protective status. I also find it laughable that so many people on Digg.com, by defending the "right to smoke" are actually supporting a position of their mortal enemy -- neo-con Republican Conservatives. Can't you liberals at least *pretend* to be somewhat consistent? Geez... - mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5But.. that date hasn't been reached yet.. did you mean 2006?
- gab00n, on 10/11/2007, -7/+11***** all smokers, they are weak pathetic losers who need a crutch to get through life.
- Dominatus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Maybe we should be really really quiet to to accommodate people with sensitive ears too!!
You don't have a RIGHT to enter a bar, the owner of said business has given you the *privilege* to enter his/her bar. Likewise, it's HIS right to allow or disallow smoking. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7"It's banned because smoking hurts those around you": I will accept this when a similar ban is imposed on car exhaust. I did not ask to breathe it, and your SUV is hurting my lungs - and the environment - a lot more than the occasional whiff of second hand tobacco smoke.
- Mothrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4There are more causes of lung problems then smoke.
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6The logic is also flawed because decision making is strongly altered when you're dealing with an addictive substance. As a former smoker I know that when I was a smoker I could give you a long list of all the reason I loved smoking, and 'chose' to do it. I quit when I realized that the entire list was just an excuse for my addiction. You're not making a choice when your serotonin receptors punish you for not smoking.
- dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5England already has government controlled medicine and it's worked out fine for them for the last 60 years. Crack open a book sometime.
- Reeses0917, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Do people go to bars to smoke or socialize? Bars that closed are using this as an excuse.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is