Metropol

The smoking ban is a good thing. Smoky atmospheres make me feel ill, and I don't want my hair and clothes to stink of someone else's addiction. I refuse to go into any place that allows smoking throuout, and haven't done since I walked out of my aunt's birthday party last March. Seperate areas are useless- it's not like the smoke stops at the border between the areas and you usually have to walk through the smoking area to get to it and/or the bar anyway. Air extraction systems are nowhere as effective as some people claim, and you always have the ignorant twats who'll light up regardless. Plus in many places the non-smoking area is a couple of tables shoved out of the way in a dingy corner which is hardly pleasant to sit in. The fact is, some smokers just don't realise how unpleasant their habit is for other people, either that or they're too selfish/arrogant to care.

Plus there's one place we go to occasionally where the dining area is non-smoking, but if it's busy they make you wait in the bar- which is smoking. When they do that I go outside and get someone else to tell me when the table's ready. No way am I sitting in that filthy atmosphere, not for even 5 minutes.

Roll on July 1st I say. Sure a minority of hardcore smokers will be inconvenienced (the type who ban on about it as if it's some sort of basic human right), but most people I know welcome the ban. It's not like the people I know who smoke even smoke in their own houses anyway.

I think I read or heard somewhere, possibly QI, that since smoking has been banned on aeroplanes, the air quality is now worse. Is this actually true?

bee bee see wrote:I think I read or heard somewhere, possibly QI, that since smoking has been banned on aeroplanes, the air quality is now worse. Is this actually true?

Yes. They filter the air less because it saves them fuel, therefore the air at the end of the flight is worse than if there was a smoking section.

It's interesting to hear the same arguments being used a year after the ban was applied up here.

At first I was very unhappy about the whole thing. Non smokers can say what they like, you can't change the fact that standing at a bus stop with buses cars and lorries whizzing by puts more filth in your lungs than sitting near someone having a post-lunch fag in a pub. As for "entropy", well, everything is always in a state of entropy. That's the nature of the universe so there's no point in needling smokers.

The conclusion of the smoking ban here is that pubs are cleaner, and don't smell so bad. I smoke less and get to meet lots of people when I step outside. Its been rather marvellous for social networking.

However I don't, and never will, understand why non-smokers beleive they have a right to treat smokers as social pariahs. You don't. We're well within our rights to smoke a legal substance without your condescension or sideways sneering. Get over yourself.

Of course I'm not addressing any non-smoker specifically, just particularly those who look down on me from the window of their fossil fuel guzzling automobiles - while I choose to walk.

agree with you 100% there Gavin. it also annoys me that Doctors refuse to treat people who smoke. I'm sure that if it was their family lying on the operating table, they operate. I'm also pretty sure, that if I go out drinking, and I get so hammered, that I wonder out into the middle of the road and get myself knocked over, the Doctor would still treat me. I personally think that drink causes more social problems than smoking ever has and ever will. not that I'd support a ban, but why don't these people get het up about drinking? they'll be banning beer in pubs next.

I also came across a woman once, who was bitching about a group of men on another table, who were laughing too loud... Why don't they just put a big sign outside the pub saying "You are welcome to come in, but there will be ABSOLUTELY NO FUN tolerated! No fun in this pub"

Gavin Scott wrote:Of course I'm not addressing any non-smoker specifically, just particularly those who look down on me from the window of their fossil fuel guzzling automobiles - while I choose to walk.

But vehicles have a useful purpose benefiting society... and without them, your fags wouldn't reach the shops.

Gavin Scott wrote: As for "entropy", well, everything is always in a state of entropy. That's the nature of the universe so there's no point in needling smokers.

I was using it to say that smoke propagates over into non-smoking areas.

It might help me give up or at least cut down on the amount i smoke. I'll put chairs and ashtrays outside my salon for the clients, pretty much all of them smoke outside on my carpark while they're waiting anyway. There is land at the rear of the salon i could landscape into a little sheltered smoker zone.

Sput wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote: As for "entropy", well, everything is always in a state of entropy. That's the nature of the universe so there's no point in needling smokers.

I was using it to say that smoke propagates over into non-smoking areas.

I understood the reference, but that's true of any particulate in the atmosphere, including what comes in from the outside.

I think its important to retain a sense of perspective about the level of harm that stray smoke will cause to a parent and child sitting in an adjacent area of a smokers section. If the bar/pub doesn't have sufficient ventilation or filtration then that is a matter for them to deal with.

It is NOT the non-smoker's right to question or criticise smokers who are sat in the facility provided. If the non-smoker believes their child to be at risk or discomfort then they should explore an alternative eatery in their locale rather than confronting people who haven't broken any rules.

Anyway, its a moot point as everywhere will be no smoking by the end of the year.

I'll just be happy not to come home with my clothes stinking of smoke for a change. I've been to places for a night out which already have a ban in place and find it weird waking up without my clothes smelling so much. I don't have a huge problem with other peoples smoke, just so long as it's not blown directly in my face, which to be honest doesn't really happen.
Of course in some places it'll be rather irrelevant anyway as they'll still have smoke machines pumping away so I'll come back stinking.

Gavin Scott wrote:I think its important to retain a sense of perspective about the level of harm that stray smoke will cause to a parent and child sitting in an adjacent area of a smokers section. If the bar/pub doesn't have sufficient ventilation or filtration then that is a matter for them to deal with.

It is NOT the non-smoker's right to question or criticise smokers who are sat in the facility provided. If the non-smoker believes their child to be at risk or discomfort then they should explore an alternative eatery in their locale rather than confronting people who haven't broken any rules.

I'm not saying it is, but I think the original post suggests that a no-smoking area is a sort of magical kingdom that the smoke simply can't get into, and even if it's not, it should be good enough for those pesky tar-free types.

I am, however, pleased you get thermodynamics - not for the first time! And nice av, gav!

Sput wrote:I'm not saying it is, but I think the original post suggests that a no-smoking area is a sort of magical kingdom that the smoke simply can't get into, and even if it's not, it should be good enough for those pesky tar-free types.

I am, however, pleased you get thermodynamics - not for the first time! And nice av, gav!

I do take the point - and I have to confess I'd rather cut off my left goolie than argue with you. I'm glad we so often see eye to eye.

Ta for the comment on the avatar. I was testing some splendid high frequency tungsten balanced fluorescent soft-lights, and I was pleased with the colour temperature if nothing else.

Roll-up roll-up - flattering lighting on sale now!