Roll on the 10th December Smokefree bars [Archive]

F5 Dave

12th November 2004, 13:35

I am SO looking forward to going out without having to ingest copious carcinogenic fumes at the same time. :banana: :banana: :banana:

Your clothes won’t stink, either will your girlfriend’s hair.

Cafés Restaurants etc will be great. I really hate when you arrive for a meal & you are just cracking into the starter when some inconsiderate fcker decides you are going to have a smoke whether you like it or not.

:apint: To paraphrase; It’s all good. :apint:

I expect a barrage of abuse from the hard of thinking about freedom of choice, but these people usually ignore the freedom of those who don’t want to smoke & either have to put up or not go out.

Or the barstaff/waiters trying to put themselves through university.

Also the ventilation argument has been quashed as it has been shown to remove the smoke but not the carcinogens.

Time for a KB night out in December? :beer:

Devil

12th November 2004, 13:48

I really cant wait.
Its going to be so good. Hopefully it's self policing too, ill be quite happy to tell someone to fuck off if they try and light up.

Paul in NZ

12th November 2004, 13:51

I could not agree more!

We walk out of places where we can't eat in peace.

Paul N

Ghost Lemur

12th November 2004, 13:52

Blakamin

12th November 2004, 13:53

I was surprised when I got back from Oz that it wasnt illegal in restaurants and cafes... has been in Vic for about 10 years... if not more! I have never smoked inside a restaurant in the last 20 years... ya just dont do it!!!
but pubs.... :bye:

Devil

12th November 2004, 13:55

So you're one of the winging little PC bitch nazi's telling concenting adults what they can and can't do aye?

Personally I couldn't care less. Hardly go out so doesn't really affect me. Feel sorry that cigar bars are now no more.

And when were you forced into going into these deathtraps??

On the topic of the employee's, they're forced to work there are they? Can't look for work elsewhere if it's such a problem for them. Of course not, society has to be blamed so they can hang on to their minimum wage jobs.

*Yawn*

Lets all control each others lives coz adults can no longer make decisions for themselves.
Why cant the majority of people go out and enjoy a social occasion with friends without having to put up with pubs/bars being effectively taken over by smokers?
Some of us would like to go out more often, but cant stand the effect it has on our system. My sinus' fuck up the instant I smell cigarette smoke, I have to move when I smell it or its sit there and be a mouth breather.

As for working at pubs I partially agree with you, but if its the only job you can find, its kind of unfortunate.

riffer

12th November 2004, 13:56

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings...

but are you aware the smell of cigarettes mitigates to some extent the smell of the toilets in most bars?

Devil

12th November 2004, 13:59

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings...

but are you aware the smell of cigarettes mitigates to some extent the smell of the toilets in most bars?
Something to ponder.
Are those ignorant fucks that flick their cigarette butts onto the road/footpath the same people who piss on the floor at the pub?

F5 Dave

12th November 2004, 14:04

So you're one of the winging little PC bitch nazi's telling concenting adults what they can and can't do aye?.

So you must be one of the hard of thinking.

I ride road bikes & dirtbikes & I'm not PC, far from it.

Lets all control each others lives coz adults can no longer make decisions for themselves.

Society is based on rules & one of them is to be considerate of others.

Yeah I despise the over regulation & control laws that are being imposed upon us, but that has little to do with not having every bar, pub & eating establishment polluted by the small minority of smokers, who to be fair only have to step outside for a puff if they feel so obliged.

Riff Raff

12th November 2004, 14:26

I gave up smoking 8 weeks ago today so that I'd be well and truly over it when the new laws come in. Feeling so good now, and it will be great in pubs with the temptation taken away.

Devil

12th November 2004, 14:28

I gave up smoking 8 weeks ago today so that I'd be well and truly over it when the new laws come in. Feeling so good now, and it will be great in pubs with the temptation taken away.
Good work! Keep at it.

jrandom

12th November 2004, 14:37

So you're one of the winging little PC bitch nazi's telling concenting adults what they can and can't do aye? ... And when were you forced into going into these deathtraps?? ...

Lets all control each others lives coz adults can no longer make decisions for themselves.

I'm glad you're so open-minded. Next time you're up in Auckland, let me know, and I'll pop over to your restaurant table and wank off into your wine glass.

F5 Dave

12th November 2004, 14:52

That’s very decent of you, I usually have to pay for that!

Riff, brings up a point; how many people have you met who claimed they only had a smoke when they were out drinking, then progressed into a fully fledged habit? Good for you by the way.

sAsLEX

12th November 2004, 15:05

ill be quite happy to tell someone to fuck off if they try and light up.

love to see you try that in an RSA on anzac day!

Eddieb

12th November 2004, 15:08

Something to ponder.
Are those ignorant fucks that flick their cigarette butts onto the road/footpath the same people who piss on the floor at the pub?

They are probably the same ones that sit outside the entrance to my work underneath and facing the no smoking signs, filling the whole entrance corridor with smoke so that asthmatic non-smokers like myself have to walk through it everytime I go to work.

That really rips my undies. :ar15:

Devil

12th November 2004, 15:23

love to see you try that in an RSA on anzac day!
Well I dont think theres any chance of that happening as:
1) I dont visit RSA's
2) I'm guessing a level of discretion could appear here.

Devil

12th November 2004, 15:24

They are probably the same ones that sit outside the entrance to my work underneath and facing the no smoking signs, filling the whole entrance corridor with smoke so that asthmatic non-smokers like myself have to walk through it everytime I go to work.

That really rips my undies. :ar15:
Same! I hate it! Then you have to put up with an elevator ride with them.
Dont get me started about all the damn cigarette butts everywhere.

Ghost Lemur

12th November 2004, 15:50

I'm glad you're so open-minded. Next time you're up in Auckland, let me know, and I'll pop over to your restaurant table and wank off into your wine glass.

I don't remember ever mentioning that I smoke in restaurants (the once a year I manage to get to one). As a matter of fact, I don't.

As I said I don't go out often enough for it to bother me. I am sad though that a small (sensible) clause wasn't put in for Cigar bars, Gentlemens clubs, etc. Somewhere where a smoker can go, enjoy a drink and a cigar, game of pool, whatever. But no,no comprimises.

Question: If everyone hates smoking in bars so much, why aren't there more non-smoking bars? One would assume if there was a large market for this then someone would already be taping it for all it's worth.

Devil

12th November 2004, 15:54

I don't remember ever mentioning that I smoke in restaurants (the once a year I manage to get to one). As a matter of fact, I don't.

As I said I don't go out often enough for it to bother me. I am sad though that a small (sensible) clause wasn't put in for Cigar bars, Gentlemens clubs, etc. Somewhere where a smoker can go, enjoy a drink and a cigar, game of pool, whatever. But no,no comprimises.

Question: If everyone hates smoking in bars so much, why aren't there more non-smoking bars? One would assume if there was a large market for this then someone would already be taping it for all it's worth.
Because it could quite easily have turned into commercial suicide.

regarding Cigar bars and things, if they made exemptions, where would you draw the line? Im glad they've done a blanket sort of ban.

Motu

12th November 2004, 16:37

I hate coming home with my clothes and what's left of my hair smelling of someone elses cigarette smoke,it's one of the main reasons I don't go out to these places.I find cigarette smokers such ignorant inconsiderate people,they will smoke right in your face,in your home and car,flick their buts out the window and anywhere else they like.I like it when they feel all guilty,then extinguish their smoke in one of my glasses,or grind their butt into my workshop floor.

Paul in NZ

12th November 2004, 16:39

I hate coming home with my clothes and what's left of my hair smelling of someone elses cigarette smoke,it's one of the main reasons I don't go out to these places.I find cigarette smokers such ignorant inconsiderate people,they will smoke right in your face,in your home and car,flick their buts out the window and anywhere else they like.I like it when they feel all guilty,them extinguish their smoke in one of my glasses,or grind their but into my workshop floor.

Go out with WT one night.

You will be glad you have any clothes left, regardless of what they smell like... :banana:

Blakamin

12th November 2004, 16:49

Because it could quite easily have turned into commercial suicide.

reckon this law will be commercial suicide... i get to speak to bar owners/managers a fair bit at work...and they're shittin bricks!

Deano

12th November 2004, 17:04

reckon this law will be commercial suicide... i get to speak to bar owners/managers a fair bit at work...and they're shittin bricks!

How are the bars going in Oz - ten years of no smoking should be enough of a trial and they are still operating ?

A cigar bar can still operate, providing its got no roof - pretty hard playing pool in the rain but oh well...shit happens.

I will be using 10 Dec as a start point to give up.....again.

The sooner all tobacco companies are sued into non existance the better I say.

Can anyone name another product that is hazardous to your health while having no beneficial effects or useful purpose (apart from stopping the craving cause your addicted) ?

Blakamin

12th November 2004, 17:14

How are the bars going in Oz - ten years of no smoking should be enough of a trial and they are still operating ?

A cigar bar can still operate, providing its got no roof - pretty hard playing pool in the rain but oh well...shit happens.

I will be using 10 Dec as a start point to give up.....again.

The sooner all tobacco companies are sued into non existance the better I say.

Can anyone name another product that is hazardous to your health while having no beneficial effects or useful purpose (apart from stopping the craving cause your addicted) ?
they didnt ban it in bars.... just restaraunts and cafes... they tried for bars but the hotel industry told the govt where to stick it!

and we can supply outdoor pool tables

R6_kid

12th November 2004, 17:14

yay i can go to the pool bar and return home without looking like i smoked a few packs. This will also stop the under agers (13-15yr olds) from going there mainly to smoke... so now wen a girl looks like shes 16, shes probably gonna be 16 :cool2:

Slipstream

13th November 2004, 09:08

I would actually like to know what it is non-smokers really have a problem with? And I'm not about to rag on non-smokers (You're doing a good job not smoking. Keep it up :niceone: ). But, is the main problem the smoke and smell, or is it the fact that you are passive smoking and getting the naughty toxins into your bodies?

Be honest now.

I have asked this of most of my friends and I tell you, only 1 couple were actually worried about the toxins.

Following on this course of information, I still cannot fathom why the government didn't impose a set of standards instead.
For example: extractor fans that pass a certain extraction of smoke/litre of air or whatever. Or an area outside where you don't have to walk past to get inside, loos etc, with a smoking outside only policy.

I mean this will only help out with smoke and smell, it won't help with the toxins which will still be floating around.

I'm wondering when there's going to be an alcohol ban. I wanna complain about all the people that smell bad when they've been drinking and their behaviour on the streets after a few. I wanna complain that they sing bad and they aren't god's gift and they should take off their beer goggles, cos that ain't Rachel Hunter over there giving them the glad eye.
Why should we rely on the bar staff, police or the Sale of Liquor Act to make people follow the rules. Lets just ban alcohol.

You may think that I'm being silly, but I really don't know what the government was thinking.

But I'll ask again.

What do the non-smokers really have a problem with, the smoke and smell, or the invisible toxins?

BTW I am trying to quit the naughty toxins and maybe this ban will help ;)

erik

13th November 2004, 09:26

Storm

13th November 2004, 09:32

Cigarettes stink, and they will screw your health up and quite possibly do for you in the end, thus, I want no part of them.

Slipstream

13th November 2004, 09:44

Kinda both. I mean, some cigarettes don't smell so bad, but there are others that are pretty bad.

Personally, I detest cigar smoke. It smells foul to me. But I think it's the smell of general smokiness.
Although I find smoke machines from dance parties to smell bad too.
When I was a Non-Smoker (started at 20) I was completely anti-smoking. Worked in a bar and hated the smell of my clothes after I had a shower. Hated having to buy 'clear eyes' to relieve my eyes of pain while working.

But you know, it wasn't the fact that I was surrounded by smoke all the time that I started to smoke. Or the stress. It was for a really dumb reason. Bar staff who smoked, got more and longer breaks than I did (being the only non-smoker). I also found that to be pretty true anywhere I've worked, where the boss smokes. Or where everyone but the boss smokes and then it's a whole cover up thing. 'I'll cover for you first, then you for me. K?'

Smoking is just another legal drug that takes the edge off the monotony of life sometimes.

Wonko

13th November 2004, 10:26

For me personally it's the smell,

Joni

13th November 2004, 10:39

I dont smoke.... but smoke does not bother me, maybe its because I worked in smokey clubs night after night.... dunno, maybe its because I grew up with a smoker, but it does not bother me, but hey.... thats just me! :spudwhat:

Juan

13th November 2004, 11:11

I personally hate smoking, I grew up with parents who smoked like chimneys and still suffer with breathing problems even now, use three inhalers twice a day at the age of 43

Hate going out to a bar and then come home with sore throat and itchy eyes.... not to mention the stink on our clothes, really doesn't help with the lurve thing :eek:

Went out last sat to a tribute night to the two local racers who died during the Manx, this took place in the newly refurbished Villa Marina complex which is a non smoking building, just so nice, no smell to take home, wot a pleasant change...

All I need now is a ban on smoking at work....

Juan

Blakamin

13th November 2004, 11:42

shit.... I've been smoking constanly since i was 10.... was started by an older family member at 8.... gave up once when i was 13 for about 2 months...(got expelled and thus belted)
I actually enjoy smoking... only smoke rollies, only about 12 a day.... (unless i'm at the pub or a party) take my butts with me when I visit non-smokers (dare ya to find one of mine in ya garden, Paul in NZ) :msn-wink:... only smoke outside....(unless at aforementioned pub) and generally think of other people!
just looks like i wont go to pubs no more... they are gunna lose some $$$, let me tell ya :blink:

Gen

13th November 2004, 14:16

I am a smoker, have been since I was eighteen and I am now 22 and I have manners when it comes to where, and when I smoke.

I move away from my parents if we are at a function because they dislike it so much.

If I am in the company of complete non smokers I will either wait to go outside to have a ciggarette, or I will choose not to at all.

I always go outside to smoke and will keep my butts with my pack, not in other people's gardens etc.

I don't smoke in my own house, and I don't smoke in anyone else's unless they do so themselves. And I have found that I still prefer to go outside, I actually hate the smell of smoke inside a house.

I don't like the smell on my fingers, and I did stop for two months last year, but I was uni student and the stress at the time made it difficult not to start again.

Please don't place all smokers under the same blame, and to be quite frank, why is it so socially acceptable to be a drunk and stink of booze??

Is it because people view alcohol as less damaging? I guess it's a choice of poisons now isn't it?

It will be a pity, convienience wise, to not be able to have a beer with a ciggarette, but I am not going to cry over the new law.

Obviously people like me have lesser needs and are lesser people for being addicted to something so many people hate.

Perhaps I should become a drunk instead?? (muses). :innocent:

jrandom

13th November 2004, 15:58

I am a smoker... I don't smoke in my own house, and I don't smoke in anyone else's unless they do so themselves...

Please don't place all smokers under the same blame, and to be quite frank, why is it so socially acceptable to be a drunk and stink of booze??

Getting drunk may be more socially acceptable than smoking, but it shouldn't be. And that's not the issue at stake here, anyway.

The main problem is, of course, that drinking booze doesn't give liver cancer to those within a 10 metre radius of you. And that's why there's a law against smoking in bars and restaurants; we *know* that if there were no law, there'd be more money to be made. That's why we legislate these things - sometimes a totally free market does not come up with the best situation possible.

Obviously people like me have lesser needs and are lesser people for being addicted to something so many people hate.

Nobody's saying that smokers are lesser people. But the law's there as an abridgement of pure capitalism (let 'em pay for what they want and do it where they please, etc) for the same reason that laws against child labour, and laws against employee exploitation and anti-union practises are in place. They don't promote absolute maximum economic efficiency, but they *do* increase the total sum of human health and happiness.

And that's why I'm not crying about the fact that you'll have to smoke and drink at home from now on.

Yamahamaman

13th November 2004, 16:06

just looks like i wont go to pubs no more...
Two negatives make a positive - in other words it is most likely that you will continue to go to pubs.

Skyryder

13th November 2004, 17:29

I could not agree more!

We walk out of places where we can't eat in peace.

Paul N

Ditto to that. My wife and I have been known to leave without paying. Once go into an argument with the restuarant manager over this very issue. We were half way through a meal when these clowns next to us lit up their cigars. All were completely pissed and rowdy. Asked the manager to ask them to stop smoking he refused so we up and left. Was sorley tempted to piss all over them.

Skyryder

Blakamin

13th November 2004, 17:38

Two negatives make a positive - in other words it is most likely that you will continue to go to pubs.
Sorry, I should rephrase that for the grammar police....
I wont go to pubs....
funny thing is, the only time I've been to pubs in the last year was a xmas do, bucks party, going away party and to live... havent actually "been to the pub" since xmas 2002 (???) when I worked in the hospitality industry and we'd go for a beer after work with the crew. so it really doesnt bother me...
It does however bother lots of our clients....

Skyryder

13th November 2004, 17:39

I'm glad you're so open-minded. Next time you're up in Auckland, let me know, and I'll pop over to your restaurant table and wank off into your wine glass.

And I will be right behind. Smokers believe that they have the right to pollute the air and as such other people. Now I could live with that if they would allow me to piss all over them. After all said and done their smoke is the by product of their pleasure, when I am drinking my piss is the by product of my pleasure.

Skyryder

6Chris6

13th November 2004, 17:41

Vagabond

13th November 2004, 18:14

Whats all this namby-pamby shit about?
You non-smokin pricks should be paying the tax on my smokes if your breathing it in so much.
They're my carcenogeny thingamees and if anyones gonna get lung cancer it should be me, after all i've paid good money for it!
So anyway i think it's a good thing so we don't share our smokes with these whinging, self righteus, my-bodies-a-temple type arseholes, they bore the shit outta me anyway :whocares: :beer: :doobey:

Lots of love
Chris
:killingme :killingme :killingme
Well said mate ! :moon: :moon: :moon: 2 non smokers

Next they'll want motorcycling banned, because thats a hazardous occupation !! :gob:

White trash

13th November 2004, 18:16

Paul in NZ

13th November 2004, 18:17

Whats all this namby-pamby shit about?
You non-smokin pricks should be paying the tax on my smokes if your breathing it in so much.
They're my carcenogeny thingamees and if anyones gonna get lung cancer it should be me, after all i've paid good money for it!
So anyway i think it's a good thing so we don't share our smokes with these whinging, self righteus, my-bodies-a-temple type arseholes, they bore the shit outta me anyway :whocares: :beer: :doobey:

Lots of love
Chris

Yeah yeah we bore you!

(yawn)

Go visit my mate Nick (bloody nice guy) currently recovering from a bloody lung transplant because of fuggin' smoking. 5 minutes with him will change your mind I can assure you!

Smokers are all so bloody staunch until faced with the reality of the grim reaper and a slow lingering painful death and then the whinging, weeping and the law suits start.

Paul N

My body is a temple to beer

White trash

13th November 2004, 18:24

We were discussing this (among other things) breifly on Thursday night at the pool hall.

One of our highly (heh heh) regarded crew commented that after Dec 10, he'll be sitting upstairs watching the pool table all by himself. Go to ROQM and 90% of the patrons smoke. Playing pool and drinking beer while enjoying a couple'a packs is what I and many others do on a Thursday night. If I have to go outside and down to the street (and leave my drink inside) for a smoke, I'll simply stop going.

I agree that people have a right not to inhale S/H smoke, I beleive resteraunts and cafes should be totally smoke free. I think bars should either be able to choose or have designated smoking and non smoking areas.

I'm sure that the extremely nice staff at ROQM just chomping at the bit to find work after December the 10th because the joint is closed down.

Blakamin

13th November 2004, 18:26

Smokers are all so bloody staunch until faced with the reality of the grim reaper and a slow lingering painful death and then the whinging, weeping and the law suits start.

Paul N

My body is a temple to beer
Jeez Paul, you could never bore me!!!... that said, I watched my step-mothers father die of emphysema after smoking all his life..(lotsa years as a POW) and that, amazingly, never changed my view on smoking.... was 14 at the time :pinch:

my body's a temple too... tryin to get the temple in the shape of buddha :whistle:

White trash

13th November 2004, 18:34

Go visit my mate Nick (bloody nice guy) currently recovering from a bloody lung transplant because of fuggin' smoking. 5 minutes with him will change your mind I can assure you!

Ahhh come on Paul, you can do better than that. My dad once took me to see one of his mates who had a broken back from over rotating a particularly fast wheelie.

Good one Dad, put me right off wheelies.

My body is a temple to beer

Mine too. And you definitely don't bore the Trashy one, even if you do ride one of them sideways, tractory type thingees.

Deano

13th November 2004, 18:42

We were discussing this (among other things) breifly on Thursday night at the pool hall.

One of our highly (heh heh) regarded crew commented that after Dec 10, he'll be sitting upstairs watching the pool table all by himself. Go to ROQM and 90% of the patrons smoke. Playing pool and drinking beer while enjoying a couple'a packs is what I and many others do on a Thursday night. If I have to go outside and down to the street (and leave my drink inside) for a smoke, I'll simply stop going.

Was that comment made after I left ?
I am going to try and give up again on the 10th, and Jimbo's a n/s so it might just be us two sitting there ? It won't be the same without the Trashman though. I suppose at least we'll be able to get our moneys worth on the pool table instead of waiting for you others to sink some balls :Pokey:

White trash

13th November 2004, 18:48

I suppose at least we'll be able to get our moneys worth on the pool table instead of waiting for you others to sink some balls :Pokey:

You cheeky cunt!

Don't think I'll wait 'till the 10th to stop going now. :crybaby:

Deano

13th November 2004, 18:56

You cheeky cunt!

Don't think I'll wait 'till the 10th to stop going now. :crybaby:

You know me - couldn't resist it.

I do have a pool table in the garage (not that it gets used), so Thursday's at my place then haha.

One thing I've read here and can't quite understand, is how does extract ventilation remove the smoke but not the carcinogens ?

I would have thought the by products of combustion (including carcinogens) would be extracted by adequate extract ventilation in the ceiling - Ive seen this at Petone Workingman's Club - the fans are that strong the smoke goes straight up and out - no smokey smell either.

Skyryder

13th November 2004, 22:41

Joni

13th November 2004, 22:43

So when I am drinking it's all aright for me to come over to your table and piss all over your hair and cloths. Yea Right.

Skyryder

You opening yourself right up with that one Skyrider.... :shutup:

StoneChucker

13th November 2004, 23:06

I'm sure the ban allows you to have completely separate, sealed or contained areas for smoking? Like at Sydney airport, there is a smoko room. It's completely sealed, has two sets of doors, and you can obviously smoke in there, but nowhere else.

So, wouldn't bars just have completely separate areas? I really think though, that if cigarettes were completely banned, yes there would be ALOT of mumbling, but when people got over their nicotine addictions, they would feel a whole lot better, AND, have a whole lot more extra cash, to pimp out their bikes :laugh: , or save, or whatever. I've tried smoking, I just can't see what the point is, they're bloody expensive, they taste terrible and they're carcinogenic.

Oh, when I'm out drinking, after a certain point if you offer me a smoke, I'll take it :lol: so I'm a hypocrite.

Dave.

PS: Don't offer me smokes when I'm drinking :Pokey:

Slipstream

13th November 2004, 23:43

I would have thought the by products of combustion (including carcinogens) would be extracted by adequate extract ventilation in the ceiling - Ive seen this at Petone Workingman's Club - the fans are that strong the smoke goes straight up and out - no smokey smell either.

You wanna see a strong extraction fan?...Check out the one in the James Cook Hotel Staff lunch area. Ooooh-wee that thing ventilates.

As far as I'm aware, the reason the carcinogens don't leave with the smoke and the smell is because of the density of the chemical oppossed to the gaseous smoke. Another idea is that the carciogens have already made contact to the clothes and other surfaces....I dunno, but it almost sounds right donnit ;)

Deano

14th November 2004, 05:43

You wanna see a strong extraction fan?...Check out the one in the James Cook Hotel Staff lunch area. Ooooh-wee that thing ventilates.

As far as I'm aware, the reason the carcinogens don't leave with the smoke and the smell is because of the density of the chemical oppossed to the gaseous smoke. Another idea is that the carciogens have already made contact to the clothes and other surfaces....I dunno, but it almost sounds right donnit ;)

I would have thought that the carcinogens would be bound in the smoke particles - the smoke at PWMC goes straight to the ceiling extractors. They must be pretty strong - watch out for ya toupee.

14th November 2004, 06:08

So when I am drinking it's all aright for me to come over to your table and piss all over your hair and cloths. Yea Right.

Skyryder
I don't think that's the same deal as passive smoking, dude.

Anyway, I'm sure you'd piss all over your pants before you got around to pissing on anything else.

Even though I'm a half-arsed smoker ( I only smoke at work, and when I'm drinking) I'm all for no smoking in bars. But they should be placing ashtrays outside for the smokers to get rid of their butts.

Paul in NZ

14th November 2004, 07:02

Even though I'm a half-arsed smoker ( I only smoke at work, and when I'm drinking) I'm all for no smoking in bars. But they should be placing ashtrays outside for the smokers to get rid of their butts.

Most chicks that smoke do so to get rid of their butts (or so I'm told)

Paul N (it's early and I'm old)

rodgerd

14th November 2004, 07:18

reckon this law will be commercial suicide... i get to speak to bar owners/managers a fair bit at work...and they're shittin bricks!

People have said the same thing in New York and California, but it didn't turn to custard there.

I'm sure it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy for a few.

Blakamin

14th November 2004, 08:22

I really think though, that if cigarettes were completely banned, yes there would be ALOT of mumbling,
That wont happen.... look at the tax the gubmint would lose!
lets see.... my rollies cost 27.60 a packet... duty free I can get 5 packets for $50......

Stinger

14th November 2004, 08:38

The thing that I dislike most about smokers in enclosed spaces isn't the smoke, it's the fact that they've got a lit little burny thing that's being waved around....

when you go out and you're wearing a nice shirt you have to be so careful that as you walk past they don't burn holes in your clothes.

Slipstream

14th November 2004, 08:46

I would have thought that the carcinogens would be bound in the smoke particles - the smoke at PWMC goes straight to the ceiling extractors. They must be pretty strong - watch out for ya toupee.

ahem...I don't have a toupee....*cough*

You know that brings a up a good point...They would be bound to the smoke particles wouldn't they....I'm gonna look that up. I do know however that extractor fans have filters to clean the air before it hits the outside....It seems to me that smoking inside with extractor fans would be healthier for all (besides not smoking) than standing outside smoking. :cold:

BTW Overseas didn't cut out cigar bars too did they? I'm pretty sure that california and NY would still have them, even if it is no smoking in bars. :spudwhat:

I think the laws going through these days are just plain silly. Good ideas without intellectual follow through. What about the law passed letting 18 year olds buy alcohol. Personally I think they shouldn't have done this, but to change it back again...That's just stupid!! :mad:

I don't vote. Maybe I should. But it's hard to choose between Idiots A and Idiots B... They've lost the plot somewhere along the line. I think we need a government overthrow for a couple of months and start again. :(

Drunken Monkey

14th November 2004, 08:52

People have said the same thing in New York and California, but it didn't turn to custard there.

I'm sure it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy for a few.

I haven't had any data on New York, but I understand from recent visitors and contractors I know who have worked over there that the smoking ban in California is flagrantly ignored and not enforced in many establishments. They had no trouble finding many a bar, cafe or restaurant they could sit in and light up without being told to extinguish the cigaratte or be the only smokers in that particular establishment.

There was a recent BBC news article on the effects of the smoking ban in Ireland.
Walk-in type boulevard pubs in the major centres noticed little difference in business - they usually have enough foot traffic going past to get the customers. The general consensus in this area was positive support of the smoking ban.
Unfortunately the law appears to have started the demise of the small-town country pub. Something like 80% (can't remember the exact figure they quoted) of small-town pub owners have cancelled or put on hold indefinately plans they had to develop their businesses (property increases/improvements). Not a single pub owner surveyed had hired more staff since the changes. 'Many' (they didn't specify _how_ many) were reported to have not replaced staff members who had left.

It's quite a shame to hear the second part. Small-town pubs all over Europe are an integral part of the community, and are not just places yobbos go to to get 'wankered' on a Friday night. They also have a character the 'franchise' pubs in the cities sadly lack.

We don't have the same kind of small-town pub culture in New Zealand, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were more adversely effected than pubs in the cities - they don't have the same pool of casual clientele.

The issue I have with the change is existing law allowed for a proprietor to run a completely smoke-free pub or restaurant. Why should all proprietors be forced to run a completely smoke-free environment in their establishment? It is their private business. Non-smokers do not have to go to their establishment if they don't like it.

The true test will be if the non-smoking lobby follows through with their promise to return to pubs. If pub business increases as a direct result and maintains a higher level (rather than just a few months as the fad comes and goes) then I guess it will be a good thing. If pubs lose business long term, that would be...well a bloody typical result - would the non-smoking lobby then like to raise some money to bail out businesses that directly suffered form a draconian law?

bleh, end waffle...

Blakamin

14th November 2004, 09:14

we have actually heard from a lot of our clients that they want to change their 12 month leases to a month by month basis.....
we have also lost alot from potential clients wanting a machine, but not knowing if they're going to be able to afford it.... at the moment, our manufacturing of new machines is just for export... this time last year we had to hire to new people just to cover the local market... now they're standing around and sweeping floors

Yamahamaman

14th November 2004, 09:41

Even though I'm a half-arsed smoker ( I only smoke at work, and when I'm drinking) I'm all for no smoking in bars. But they should be placing ashtrays outside for the smokers to get rid of their butts.

Then again - take your own ashtray so that you can have the pleasure of cleaning it out when you have finished using it. Why let some other poor sole do it?

Jackrat

14th November 2004, 09:42

I belong to a private club that pretty much does what it likes.
You can't get though the front gate without an invite,we have no issue with the new laws.They don't apply to us.
I think clubs like ours will become more common but I feel sorry for the owner of the small country pub a few Kms down the road from us.
He knows he's buggered,most of his customers are farmers and most of them smoke.It's a pity because his place has been there for close to 50 years an now it's going down the drain because the Gov't only passes laws for the few.
None of these AK yuppies come out here, yet his customers have to live by their rules.
Weather it's noise at THE SPRINGS or smoking in public bars where the whingers wouldn't have felt comfortable anyway,this country is being changed in a very nasty way by the constant whinging of the PC crowd.
One thing I know for sure is that if any ASH types are ever found slimeing their way into our place,nobody here will be ringing the amb'o for them.
We intend to preserve our way of life,it's why our club was formed.

Paul in NZ

14th November 2004, 10:53

We intend to preserve our way of life,it's why our club was formed.

I'd humbly suggest that if you want to preserve your life you stop smoking.

None of my damn business of course as long as you don't steal any of my years I don't care!

But! To suggest this law is being supported by a few loonies against the wishes of the many I think is drawing a pretty long bow Jackrat. I think you would be amazed at the number of people looking forwards to this. Smokers are definately in the minority!

Paul N

Skyryder

14th November 2004, 11:32

reckon this law will be commercial suicide... i get to speak to bar owners/managers a fair bit at work...and they're shittin bricks!

Got talking to bar owner in Cali, a few years back and they had much the same fear. Turned out with the smoking ban their profits were up. More punters an apparently non smokers drink faster.

Skyryder

Skyryder

14th November 2004, 11:34

Skyryder

14th November 2004, 11:42

I don't think that's the same deal as passive smoking, dude.

Why not.

Skyryder

14th November 2004, 11:48

Then again - take your own ashtray so that you can have the pleasure of cleaning it out when you have finished using it. Why let some other poor sole do it?
Do you clean public toilets after you use them?

14th November 2004, 11:51

Why not.

Skyryder

Are you going to eat Asparigus before you do it?

Skyryder....Ooops

NC30_Chick

Yamahamaman

14th November 2004, 13:19

Do you clean public toilets after you use them?
Smokers use them as ashtrays as well. Have you ever tried flushing a cigarette butt - I haven't as I don't smoke, however a lot have tried without success. Good reason not to use public toilets.

Hitcher

14th November 2004, 13:36

Beware the long, seductive and politically-correct wedge that is smokefree legislation, gentle readers, for it is the beginning of the end.

So what's next? Get ready for the "fat tax". Enjoy those sausages, chops and chicken drumsticks for the day of reckoning is nigh.

And then? Sugar, the new cigarette smoke. Bye bye Coke, so long Tui beer, farewell to chocolate, I think I'm going to cry. Bye bye sugar goodbye.

Motorcyclists of all people were I thought committed to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I guess I was wrong.

How many posts have I read on this site howling indignation at such things as:

-- The Police
-- Hidden speed cameras
-- Exhaust noise restrictions
-- Discriminatory ACC levies
-- Cheesecutter median barriers
-- Unsignposted roadworks (to name but a few).

Wake up and smell the coffee while ye may!

The Assyrian came down as a wolf on the fold...

14th November 2004, 13:37

Smokers use them as ashtrays as well.
That wasn't the question I asked you.

Have you ever tried flushing a cigarette butt - I haven't as I don't smoke
Takes a couple of goes, just like a heavy cable.

however a lot have tried without success.

So your trying to tell me, that through word of mouth from the smoking community that there are toilets out there jam packed full of cigarette butts? That can't flush cause they are unflushable?

Good reason not to use public toilets.
So you go and piss on peoples walls so the street stinks and someone has to come along and clean it, because you wont use a public toilet in fear of an unflushable cigarette butt?

Jackrat

14th November 2004, 13:40

I'd humbly suggest that if you want to preserve your life you stop smoking.

None of my damn business of course as long as you don't steal any of my years I don't care!

But! To suggest this law is being supported by a few loonies against the wishes of the many I think is drawing a pretty long bow Jackrat. I think you would be amazed at the number of people looking forwards to this. Smokers are definately in the minority!

Paul N

Not a problem,don't come to our club.

Yamahamaman

14th November 2004, 13:45

Takes a couple of goes, just like a heavy cable.

Have you ever had the experience of cleaning a urinal - no I guess not. Cigarette butts don't flush anywhere in those!!!

And no, I don't pee on other peoples trees et al. I leave that to the cat's.

Jackrat

14th November 2004, 13:48

Paul in NZ

14th November 2004, 14:23

That goes over most NIMBY heads around here.
Odd how many jump on the bandwagon yet scream bloody murder when it's their turn.
Pack of fucking sheep most of em' :no:

Hang on a minute... With the greatest possible respect I think you are scewing the argument with emotion to suit your self. Just because you have been allowed to do something for a period of time does not make it right. (ask the guys on Pitcairn island)

Any society will have rules and the rules change from time to time. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon at all but you do need to accept that times have changed and smoking in public areas where other people have no choice but to breath your smoke is no longer acceptable (in the eyes of the law).

Whether it should have been banned, adequate extraction supplied or something else is another argument again.

No one is jumping on any band wagons or being PC. If I don't like something (and I don't like secondhand smoke) why does that some how make me less manly to say so? I might have a nasty habit of shitting in public but commonly held belief is currently that this is not a good thing to do and should be discouraged.

If you come to our place you are more than welcome to smoke outside and i don't really care what you do with the butts, its a big garden but Vicki and I don't smoke. Fair enough you say, your house your rules...

It's when it gets public that the problems occur. If we were at the pub and you light up, my choice is to suck down your smoke or leave? So in fact you are removing my choice not to smoke? And thats the key! If you want to smoke, please do so but don't make me do it too! If we were on a group ride and you were a much faster rider than me, you would not force me to ride at your speed would you? No, I have to ride my own ride and the same applies to smoking, the non smokers are being pushed out of public areas by inconsiderate smokers!

hence the law change!

So why does a group have a right to enforce this? In this society because they attracted enough support to force a law change.

Now it might be they ban my noisey bike? I'd be well pissed off BUT if the other option was don't ride it? So I try to be careful and not piss off my neighbours and ride it flat out in open spaces only.

As for calling people a pack of fucking sheep? Thats a bit rich isn't it? It's not us chained to the smoking habit and sucking down the BS the tobacco companies spread about the manliness of smoking... And as for screaming bloody murder? What? Like the class action law suits taken out by smokers once they found they really were coughing up their lungs? :o

(Ok I'm smiling when I wrote that, it's a bit of humour OK)

Come on. If it does not work and pubs start going broke left right and centre then the law will be revised OR you can start your own petition to do so!

Paul N

Right! I'm off to muffle the cat, embrace gay men and other PC stuff...

14th November 2004, 14:34

Have you ever had the experience of cleaning a urinal - no I guess not. Cigarette butts don't flush anywhere in those!!!

Why would I even go near a urinal? I gave up eating the urinal cakes years ago.

And no, I don't pee on other peoples trees et al. I leave that to the cat's.

Good reason not to use public toilets.
So you go and piss on peoples walls so the street stinks and someone has to come along and clean it, because you wont use a public toilet in fear of an unflushable cigarette butt?

I don't see anything about TREES anywhere in that last post...

Yamahamaman

14th November 2004, 14:47

Why would I even go near a urinal?

You have never had to clean them. Think yourself lucky Darlin!!

I gave up eating the urinal cakes years ago.

You never mentioned you were once a student - you must be the first that I have heard of that actually ate them.

I don't see anything about TREES anywhere in that last post...

I think 'et al' covers everything.

Hitcher

14th November 2004, 14:57

Hang on a minute... With the greatest possible respect I think you are scewing the argument with emotion to suit your self. Just because you have been allowed to do something for a period of time does not make it right. (ask the guys on Pitcairn island)

Any society will have rules and the rules change from time to time. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon at all but you do need to accept that times have changed and smoking in public areas where other people have no choice but to breath your smoke is no longer acceptable (in the eyes of the law).
Paul ("with the greatest possible respect") I think you are using sophistry to conceal or avoid the underlying issues here.

By the way, I haven't smoked since I left high school, aged 17 (you do the maths).

The Smokefree Environments Act is hypocrisy in a near-pure form. If smoking is so bad for people's heath (and I'm not contesting this for a moment), then the Government should ban the practice entirely. End of story. As a taxpayer I would be more receptive to this than handing over my hard-earned income to the Government to pass (more) dumb laws and to fund endless advertising campaigns trying to convince the unconvinceable to stop the unimaginable.

Even worse is the complicity of the Government in extracting a significant amount of dosh from the tobacco industry to fund "stop smoking" initiatives.

If Governments are sufficiently spineless to ban tobacco products, then they should be brave enough at least to internalise all costs associated with the practice and lay these fairly and orthogonally at the tobacco industry's door.

And the hypocrisy of New Zealanders on this subject is another matter that riles me -- and the inimitable Mr Jackrat. NIMBYism at its finest!

14th November 2004, 15:03

You have never had to clean them. Think yourself lucky Darlin!!
Boys wee smells

You never mentioned you were once a student - you must be the first that I have heard of that actually ate them.
Yep, well you never asked. And I do strange things when I'm drunk for $50.

I think 'et al' covers everything.

Meh....

Hitcher

14th November 2004, 15:05

And I do strange things when I'm drunk for $50.
Not as strange, I suspect, as the things I do when I'm drunk for $150...

Yamahamaman

14th November 2004, 15:16

Boys wee smells
Yep, well you never asked. And I do strange things when I'm drunk for $50.
Meh....
Whatever turns you on the most Darlin' !!!!

14th November 2004, 15:20

Not as strange, I suspect, as the things I do when I'm drunk for $150...

*ponders* :confused:

Do you have photos?

:laugh:

14th November 2004, 15:23

Whatever turns you on the most Darlin' !!!!

I don't get any sexual gratification out of it...
:crazy:

Hitcher

14th November 2004, 15:24

Do you have photos?
We could always play "Doctors and Nurses"...

14th November 2004, 15:31

We could always play "Doctors and Nurses"...

Ok!!! I'll be the doctor, I choose proctologist :laugh:

Paul in NZ

14th November 2004, 16:42

Paul ("with the greatest possible respect") I think you are using sophistry to conceal or avoid the underlying issues here.

By the way, I haven't smoked since I left high school, aged 17 (you do the maths).

The Smokefree Environments Act is hypocrisy in a near-pure form. If smoking is so bad for people's heath (and I'm not contesting this for a moment), then the Government should ban the practice entirely. End of story. As a taxpayer I would be more receptive to this than handing over my hard-earned income to the Government to pass (more) dumb laws and to fund endless advertising campaigns trying to convince the unconvinceable to stop the unimaginable.

Even worse is the complicity of the Government in extracting a significant amount of dosh from the tobacco industry to fund "stop smoking" initiatives.

If Governments are sufficiently spineless to ban tobacco products, then they should be brave enough at least to internalise all costs associated with the practice and lay these fairly and orthogonally at the tobacco industry's door.

And the hypocrisy of New Zealanders on this subject is another matter that riles me -- and the inimitable Mr Jackrat. NIMBYism at its finest!

Well you certainly raise some good (and un-expected) points.

However, I disagree with you. By following your example all activity the government of the day considers 'dangerous' could be banned. Including the use of motorcycles or (say) skydiving. Since this is clearly not the function of governments in a free society a compromise must be reached. The problem with all compromises is that no one gets everything they want. The balance has swung in the direction of the non smokers, thats all that has happened. Naturally, the smokers don't like it but need to face the fact that over the last 20 years their position has become marginalised!

What this legislation is doing is preventing people making unvoluntary choices for others. If you want to smoke and are prepared to pay the price, you may do so. The price for doing so is rising and please do it in a place with sufficient volume of air not to harm others.

So, in my opinion, it is a reasonable compromise! (as are nearly all laws)

The example used earlier of people pissing on people at tables is a bit silly because you are actively targeting someone with your filth. A better example is to imagine if we were all swimming in a pool. Some dirty bugger takes a dump! You cannot escape and it is a definate health risk! So, quite reasonably doing numbers ones and twos is not allowed in swiming pools! Makes perfect sense (yet morons still do it) and no sensible person would object to it (scatologists excepted). Smoking in an enclosed public space is similar surely?

If you want to pee in the sea, knock yourself out, it's big enough to cope (but I would rather you didn't). But pools have toilet facilities!

The govt could have banned smoking but they did not have the mandate to do so. They reached a liveable compromise. Where is the spohistry in this?

Societies change and so does their tolerance to certain activities. It was not that long ago certain people were still annoyed they were not allowed to take the villiage maidens as their landed rights on their wedding night.

This (so far) is a rights issue. Non smokers have rights too! If you would like to argue health issues, the door is open!

Paul N

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 17:50

That wont happen.... look at the tax the gubmint would lose!
lets see.... my rollies cost 27.60 a packet... duty free I can get 5 packets for $50......

don't worry man, you are going to get it all back plus more in the form of life support for your decaying carcass.

14th November 2004, 18:03

don't worry man, you are going to get it all back plus more in the form of life support for your decaying carcass.
Well that’s a dearth piece of literary debauchery

Hitcher

14th November 2004, 18:05

This (so far) is a rights issue. Non smokers have rights too! If you would like to argue health issues, the door is open!
Well, yes. This is about rights. The right of smokers to smoke (this practice is not yet illegal, partly for the reasons you articulate) and the right of non-smokers not to smoke.

Another issue is mitigation or removal of a hazard (tobacco smoke) from environments where there are non-smokers present. The Government's response has been to legislate. There are other solutions. Also don't forget that non-smokers aren't all zealots and sometimes actually enjoy being in the presence of smokers indulging in the act.

An inevitable consequence and double-standard of all of this is smokers being condemned as social pariahs -- legally able to smoke (age restrictions noted) but just not able to do it anywhere.

Jackrat

14th November 2004, 18:05

Skyryder

14th November 2004, 18:11

Are you going to eat Asparigus before you do it?

Skyryder....Ooops

NC30_Chick

Whenever I have raised this issue with smokers no one has ever come up with a debatable answer. Now I agree going over and pissing on someone is going to provoke a reaction. If for no other reason than the law is being broken. But your response to my question is not entirely unexpected. There is no argument for pollutiing other people either way. I will leave you to ponder my original comparison but put another way. Would you sooner have an antiseptic poured over you or would you prefer to inhale a poison.

And please try not and get personal. I can control my bladder very well thank you.

Skyryder

14th November 2004, 18:24

Whenever I have raised this issue with smokers no one has ever come up with a debatable answer. Now I agree going over and pissing on someone is going to provoke a reaction. If for no other reason than the law is being broken. But your response to my question is not entirely unexpected. There is no argument for pollutiing other people either way. I will leave you to ponder my original comparison but put another way. Would you sooner have an antiseptic poured over you or would you prefer to inhale a poison.

And please try not and get personal. I can control my bladder very well thank you.

Skyryder
Nope, I was merely taking the piss out of your comment about "pissing on people and their drinks". I thought it was quiet funny, and merely asked if you would indulge in some asparagus to "enhance" the disgusting smell of urine.

If you read back to my very first post, I have no problem with banning cigarette smoking in Pubs, Clubs and Restaurants. I myself hate the smell of cigarette smoke in my hair and in my clothes after a good night out on the town.

And hitting people with personal attacks an't my style..
Ching ching-a-ling

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 18:35

Well, yes. This is about rights. The right of smokers to smoke (this practice is not yet illegal, partly for the reasons you articulate) and the right of non-smokers not to smoke.

Another issue is mitigation or removal of a hazard (tobacco smoke) from environments where there are non-smokers present. The Government's response has been to legislate. There are other solutions. Also don't forget that non-smokers aren't all zealots and sometimes actually enjoy being in the presence of smokers indulging in the act.

An inevitable consequence and double-standard of all of this is smokers being condemned as social pariahs -- legally able to smoke (age restrictions noted) but just not able to do it anywhere.

since when did you have the right to smoke? you make like the right to smoke is guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi! :laugh:

Smoking is most certainly not a right, it is a disgusting personal habit that the non-smoking majority have tolerated in the past, and now do not.

Name another activity that is performed by a minority of the population, demonstratably harms the health other people, costs society megabucks in healthcare costs, and that society hasn't already acted on to impede/eliminate. Can't? Didn't think so.

Nothing personal eh. :sweatdrop

Paul in NZ

14th November 2004, 19:05

Name another activity that is performed by a minority of the population, demonstratably harms the health other people, costs society megabucks in healthcare costs, and that society hasn't already acted on to impede/eliminate. Can't? Didn't think so.

Nothing personal eh. :sweatdrop

Um?

The spreading of superphosphate?

The fast food industry.

The alcohol industry

The P industry

Timber treatment plants

The cosmetics industry

um.. You get the picture.... :argh:

Paul N :rolleyes:

Hitcher

14th November 2004, 19:10

since when did you have the right to smoke?
If any activity is not illegal, then people have a right to do it. Whether you agree with it or not. Yes?

And, if you have been following recent posts to this thread, you will have noted that I choose not to smoke.

Joni

14th November 2004, 19:16

don't worry man, you are going to get it all back plus more in the form of life support for your decaying carcass.

And while we are not getting personal.... this post absolutely sucks!!! Come on dude... think before you speak/write, and consider that other people dont want to read this kind of thing. :angry2:

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 19:27

Um?

The spreading of superphosphate?

The fast food industry.

The alcohol industry

The P industry

Timber treatment plants

The cosmetics industry

um.. You get the picture.... :argh:

Paul N :rolleyes:

aren't these only affecting the health of the user? unless you count fat people crushing their kids to death and p-heads taking to people with runcible spoons?

the rest of these activities are largely performed by businesses, and while I find them socially irresponsible and believe should be dealt with, the original subject of my discussion was centred on personal activities.

thus I think my point still stands, if something is going on that is to the detriment both to society as a whole, and to the individual, can we reasonably expect our representative government not to take action and stop it?

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 19:31

And while we are not getting personal.... this post absolutely sucks!!! Come on dude... think before you speak/write, and consider that other people dont want to read this kind of thing. :angry2:

sorry if that was found offensive, though surely you cannot deny the raping that one subjects their body to by smoking? you know exactly where that road ends, and it's not pretty.

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 19:49

If any activity is not illegal, then people have a right to do it. Whether you agree with it or not. Yes?

And, if you have been following recent posts to this thread, you will have noted that I choose not to smoke.

I use 'you' in a purely general sense, though I confess I assumed you to smoke, based on your debate so far.

Right: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

ok, nowhere in NZ law is the ability to smoke guaranteed, so scratch the law front.

it is not in human nature to smoke, indeed it is most abbhorrent, so scratch the nature front.

tradition? NZ culture has always espoused common courtesy, public smoking runs contrary to that. that point might just hold up in the US, where the 'fuck everybody else, I'll do as I please' attitude is alive and well. I sincerely hope NZers continue to generally have respect for the wellbeing of their fellow man.

so, judging from that, I don't think smoking can be classified as a right.

ps. I hope nobody thinks I'm trolling or nuttin, I just enjoy a healthy debate.

Joni

14th November 2004, 19:49

sorry if that was found offensive, though surely you cannot deny the raping that one subjects their body to by smoking? you know exactly where that road ends, and it's not pretty.

I hear what you are saying, however each person has the right to decide what they want to do with their lives and their bodies... and at the end of the day that decaying carcass has people who care about them!

Paul in NZ

14th November 2004, 19:52

If any activity is not illegal, then people have a right to do it. Whether you agree with it or not. Yes?

Oh come now!

Thats a gross over simplification! It's not illegal to do a lot of things but it is illegal to do them in the wrong place.

You can have sex but not in a public bar! (well not the sort I go to)

You are not allowed to kill people (regretably in some cases) but you are allowed to defend yourself.

Laws are seldom absolutes. I might consider someone blowing smoke in my face a threat to my safety but the court would probably not allow that as a defence if I killed them with a cocktail stick on the spot! Presumeably because the threat was not immeadiate.

The point is, some activities are legal only in designated areas!

I don't see the problem...

Paul N

(actually quite enjoying the joust old bean! Best fun I've had in years)

Stinger

14th November 2004, 20:24

since when did you have the right to smoke? you make like the right to smoke is guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi! :laugh:

Smoking is most certainly not a right, it is a disgusting personal habit that the non-smoking majority have tolerated in the past, and now do not.

Name another activity that is performed by a minority of the population, demonstratably harms the health other people, costs society megabucks in healthcare costs, and that society hasn't already acted on to impede/eliminate. Can't? Didn't think so.

Motorcycling... :o
Drinking
Asian Driving (not all, I realise...)

One problem that I find with the way that the problem is being dealth with, is the way it tends to concentrate smokers. Like at Auckland Hospital, they decided to make the entire premises "non smoking". Which meant that they removed the little smoking shacks they used to have... and the ashtrays. The net result is that the front entrance is crowded with smokers that everyone has to walk through, you've got elderly patients having to walk right outside (with their drip still attached). Butts lying everywhere. At least when the shacks and ashtrays were out the smokers had a sensible place out of the way of non-smokers so you could choose whether to go near the smoke.

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 21:16

o0o0o0oh yeah, seems that everybody has workplace horror stories about having to 'run the gauntlet' at the entranceways...

I think the solution is some kind of head-bubble. the smoker just lights up, then places the airtight bag over their head, just imagine it! they could smoke anywhere and nobody would mind!

they could come in all kinds of zany colours, and be biodegradable, and they could make ones with Disney designs on them for kids!

Stinger

14th November 2004, 21:22

o0o0o0oh yeah, seems that everybody has workplace horror stories about have to 'run the gauntlet' at the entranceways...

I think the solution is some kind of head-bubble. the smoker just lights up, then places the airtight bag over their head, just imagine it! they could smoke anywhere and nobody would mind!

they could come in all kinds of zany colours, and be biodegradable, and they could make ones with Disney designs on them for kids!

Haha, I thought of a similar idea a while ago.
I've got a rebreather, which for the non-tech people basically scrubs out the C02, and adds a bit more oxygen, so a single oxygen bottle can last you ages. I thought that if the smoker took a big puff and then breathed out into the rebreather then instead of all this silly sharing of their nicotine they could have all of it... a single cigarette would last AGES.., no passive smoking problems.

Jamezo

14th November 2004, 21:29

wouldn't it be cheaper to, ya know, not supply oxygen? the bag on its own ought to do the trick :shifty:

Stinger

14th November 2004, 21:36

Hypoxia... lot's of fun :msn-wink: And if you don't scrub the air it's even better....,Hypercapnia.... they get the effect where they get intoxicated and paralysed

Kwaka-Kid

14th November 2004, 21:49

Blah, Blah... F-ing Blah!:stoogie: My XR500 smokes, my XR200 smokes, and even my 750E1 smokes... Hope they dont prevent me from bringing them into bars.

Anyways this is a realy amusing thread! 6chris6 your trolling is by far the funniest:eek:

Slipstream

15th November 2004, 07:06

If you come to our place you are more than welcome to smoke outside and i don't really care what you do with the butts, its a big garden but Vicki and I don't smoke. Fair enough you say, your house your rules...

It's when it gets public that the problems occur. If we were at the pub and you light up, my choice is to suck down your smoke or leave? So in fact you are removing my choice not to smoke?

And thats the key!

the non smokers are being pushed out of public areas by inconsiderate smokers!

hence the law change!

You are correct when you say, your house your rules. But why do you think bars put out ashtrays? Why do you think there are non-smoking signs in certain areas (admitidly they could be placed better). Bars put them up to comply with everyone.
They want everyone to be happy and therefore make more money.
Thats their rules.

My question is, how many Non-smoking bars have you seen?
I've seen a few that go bust after a couple of months. What does that tell you?
1 Non-smokers are all talk when they say they'd go to a bar if it's non-smoking
2 Non-smokers don't actually like drinking in public places
3 There aren't enough non-smoking drinkers to make non-smoking bars realistic
4 Non-smokers have smoking friends and rather than take them to a non- smoking bar, they follow them to a smoking one
5 Bars with smokers are more fun

No one is removing your choice to smoke! You remove it yourself when you stand next to someone who smokes!

I'm an on-off smoker, so I guess that makes me a smoker in reality. But I know that if a non-smoking friend of mine is sitting on a bench, when I go to sit down next to them I don't light up without asking, or at all, cos effectively that their space. However, if they came up to sit next to me and I was smoking, and they asked me to put it out cos they didn't want to passive smoke, I'd tell them politely, to move on.

Ok airplanes, buses, trains, McDonalds, other restaurants, most office spaces and some retail outfits, all used to let you smoke there. I agree with them and it has made working a lot easier, but leave us some public place to smoke.
You say that smokers are being inconsiderate, what have non-smokers done to _be_ considerate?

Some lady in government wants her name to be remembered (which is why I wont use it) and has picked the one thing that will make the most noise (apart from an alcohol ban) and gone with it.

That's why the law is changing.

But like I said, I'm an on-off smoker and it won't bother me directly what the bars do. But it will bother me when my real smoking friends get affected.
If we choose to kill ourselves with smoking a little quicker, that's our choice.
It's non-smokers choice wether to stand next to us when we smoke or not.

I still think the best thing would be to put in filtered extractor fans. The smoke would be contained, extracted, filtered and thrown away...fresher air for everybody.

Paul in NZ

15th November 2004, 07:47

My question is, how many Non-smoking bars have you seen?
I've seen a few that go bust after a couple of months. What does that tell you?
1 Non-smokers are all talk when they say they'd go to a bar if it's non-smoking
2 Non-smokers don't actually like drinking in public places
3 There aren't enough non-smoking drinkers to make non-smoking bars realistic
4 Non-smokers have smoking friends and rather than take them to a non- smoking bar, they follow them to a smoking one
5 Bars with smokers are more fun

No one is removing your choice to smoke! You remove it yourself when you stand next to someone who smokes!

New bars go broke all the time. The success rate of a new bar (or most new business) is minimal. Even existing bars go broke because the punters are a fickle lot and shift loyalty rapidly. A new smokefree bar going bust proves bugger all.

1 yet to be proved. (see below)
2 possibly because of the smokers? it will take time to see if this behaviour changes.
3 dunno about that (see below)
4 in your case that might be true but not for everyone.
5 (sigh) not for non smokers

Which is precisely why most non smokers don't go to bars which leads me to think this is rapidly becoming a circular argument.

A recent study found that 76 percent of California bargoers are bothered
by secondhand smoke. That same study found that 64 percent of
Californians go to bars, and 75 percent of those bar patrons don't smoke.

In reality, there is currently a global trend towards non smoking in bars and public places so it's not just one mad woman in government. Despite this, I have not noticed the world stopping to turn or beer companies going bust? Bars will find a way to satisfy everyone and in fact, had they gone the extra mile and installed decent extraction units when they were required to set up the non smoking areas instead of the lip service usually paid, this legislation would not have been required!

The legislation requires bar owners to take all reasonable steps but smokers are allowed to smoke in the open. Since "The Open" is not defined in the legisation one suspects a cetain amount of leeway will be accorded! A semi enclosed balcony for example! (maybe you could open a bar called "The Open" and make a mint?)

Whether you or I has the right of it or not, the fact (and the only fact probably in this whole thread) remains that a new law is going to come into force. You still live in a free country and you have the right to protest and the ability to change the law through democratic process provided you can gather sufficient support.

Thats probably a better place for your side of this argument now? On the 12th you could doubtless find a lot of bankrupt bar owners willing to stage a march on the beehive comple with pitchforks and burning torches (oh hang on, that's probably not allowed under the smoke free laws)

Oh well... Back to work!

bluninja

15th November 2004, 08:25

Well the trend is spreading. The Scottish parliament has voted to stop smoking in enclosed public places (including bars) and that comes into force in about 18 months. So I guess we will see a further depopulation of Scotland whilst they pour south to be able to smoke in bars :msn-wink:

To me the bottom line is that bars and pubs have not done enough (costs them money with no return) to provide choice and now they are reaping what they've sown.

I guess as society gets more litigeous the government (of any country) are looking ahead to make sure they don't get sued in the future for not doing enough to protect people from second hand smoke.

Drunken Monkey

15th November 2004, 08:29

...
In reality, there is currently a global trend towards non smoking in bars ...

No, to call the trend 'global' is completely false. It is only a trend in the UK, USA/Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and possibly any of their related territories). 'Mainland' Europeans continue to smoke in public places and advertise smoking. They do not maintain the same attitudes to smoking as 'we' do.
Smoking is not discouraged all over Asia, in fact in Japan it is still promoted as the Japanese government has large financial interest in their local tobacco industry.
Tobacco smoking is still increasing across Africa.
Smoking is also popular in the Middle East, although this article:http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11741
suggests at least one country is attempting to reverse the trend.
Don't presume that something that is prevalent in our culture's media and near neighbours media that it is global trend.

Need data?
http://smokingsides.com/docs/stat.html
knock yourselves out :)

bluninja

15th November 2004, 08:51

No, to call the trend 'global' is completely false. It is only a trend in the UK, USA/Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and possibly any of their related territories). 'Mainland' Europeans continue to smoke in public places and advertise smoking. They do not maintain the same attitudes to smoking as 'we' do.

Try and watch the motoGP and Superbike from 'mainland' Europe and spot the tobacco sponsorship on the bikes ? Can't? Oh yes...there's central europe.

Global trend....are we talking by population? Economies? Perhaps I should have said there is a global trend in most developed countries. Citing one country does not mean it's not a trend.

Had a look at the links.....stats for outside the US at least 10 years old. One thing I do think it shows is that in developing economies where they can market to their hearts content they have increased the number of smokers (and sales). So I guess there is absolutely no link between advertising and people smoking (or starting to smoke). Whoops going off topic.

Deano

15th November 2004, 09:14

I am SO looking forward to going out without having to ingest copious carcinogenic fumes at the same time. :banana: :banana: :banana:

Hey Dave, what about all the carcinogens you breathe in (exhaust fumes)while chasing other bikes around the race track ? :Pokey:

Or are you always out in front.... :msn-wink:

F5 Dave

15th November 2004, 09:14

Wow this really has taken the KB members to task on both sides. 8 pages in 3 days isn’t bad.

Come on my precious, grow, grow.

F5 Dave

15th November 2004, 09:17

Hey Dave, what about all the carcinogens you breathe in (exhaust fumes)while chasing other bikes around the race track ? :Pokey:

Or are you always out in front.... :msn-wink:

modesty prevents me [cough]

um interesting, guess they are well diluted. I did follow someone running some naughty fuel & man did it stink. Apparently the real funny stuff makes your eyes water if you are real close.

Paul in NZ

15th November 2004, 09:19

Wow this really has taken the KB members to task on both sides. 8 pages in 3 days isn’t bad.

Come on my precious, grow, grow.

Yes! Well done that man!

Deano

15th November 2004, 09:24

modesty prevents me [cough]

um interesting, guess they are well diluted. I did follow someone running some naughty fuel & man did it stink. Apparently the real funny stuff makes your eyes water if you are real close.

Is that some sort of moonshine concoction ? It made the General Lee go well.

I used to love the smell of some 2 stoke oils when being burnt at a great rate.

F5 Dave

15th November 2004, 09:25

Yeah Castrol TTS is my favorite, . . . well smelling at least.

Drunken Monkey

15th November 2004, 09:27

Try and watch the motoGP and Superbike from 'mainland' Europe and spot the tobacco sponsorship on the bikes ? Can't? Oh yes...there's central europe.

Fair 'nuff, I shall concede that is possibly gross generalisation. The point is public smoking bans, and people's attitudes to smoking, not advertising. Do you honestly beleive Europeans (the whole EEC here, not just a select few motorbike race suppporting western Europe states) are, in general, equally, if not more anti-smoking than we are? Have you recent personal experience? When was the last time you sat in a cafe in Paris? A bar in Germany? A bar in Prague? A restaurant in Greece? Would someone with more than my measly 6 weeks of European exposure care to comment?

Global trend....are we talking by population? Economies? Perhaps I should have said there is a global trend in most developed countries. Citing one country does not mean it's not a trend..

Asia isn't third world. Since when did Hong Kong, Japan or Korea (to name a few) suddenly become a developing country? Economies don't smoke, people smoke. The comment was to put in context that is indeed not a world-wide trend. Paul in NZ said 'global' - the comment does not specifically exclude developing countries - and why should it? Whether third world or developing countries have schemes in place to discourage smoking is irrelevant to the comment. I would suggest that unless 51% of the world's population is living in a country/ies that are banning smoking in bars, then it is indeed not a global trend. Fair enough?

Had a look at the links.....stats for outside the US at least 10 years old. One thing I do think it shows is that in developing economies where they can market to their hearts content they have increased the number of smokers (and sales). So I guess there is absolutely no link between advertising and people smoking (or starting to smoke). Whoops going off topic.

My bad, I meant to post a link to the 1999 WHO data. Bleh, can't find it now either, although most published studies from a rudimentary google search are based on data up to 1996.

Yes, that is off topic, but worth discussing. Further hyposchrisy in action - why would a government ban smoking form virtually anywhere but your own home and ban virtually all forms of advertising, all 'for the good of the health of the population', yet make no steps at regulating the tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers. If there was no substantial financial gain (ie through taxes), then I would imagine tobacco would have the same status as marijuana.

FTR, my interest is purely acedemic - I don't smoke cigarettes, and only smoke my cigars (vary rarely at that) while enjoying a good single malt in the privacy of my own home.

MikeL

15th November 2004, 09:45

[QUOTE=Drunken Monkey Do you honestly beleive Europeans (the whole EEC here, not just a select few motorbike race suppporting western Europe states) are, in general, equally, if not more anti-smoking than we are? Have you recent personal experience? When was the last time you sat in a cafe in Paris? A bar in Germany? A bar in Prague? A restaurant in Greece? Would someone with more than my measly 6 weeks of European exposure care to comment?
[/QUOTE]

I first went to Europe 30 years ago, and was last there in October 2002. The 2 countries I know particularly well are France and Italy. My observation is that the smoking rate and attitudes towards smoking have scarcely changed. There have always been non-smoking train carriages, but trying to find a smoke-free restaurant, bar or cafe would be a challenge. Even to ask for a non-smoking hotel room identifies you as a (probably Anglo-Saxon) tourist.
I suspect that in Germany and Scandinavia it might be a bit different.

F5 Dave

15th November 2004, 09:58

Yes attitudes do change slowly, it used to be that it was fine to smoke at work & further; driving while drunk was just one of those things people did.

Just because they do something overseas doesn’t mean they are more enlightened than us.

It may well be in Europe the tobacco companies have more political clout as they employ many people.

I resent the fact that a company decides we will buy its wares with such scant disregard to the health risks it covers them up as much as it can.

It has decided we need to smoke & sadly the biggest group of smokers seem to be teenage girls esp. those from ethnic minorities.

Paul in NZ

15th November 2004, 10:03

sadly the biggest group of smokers seem to be teenage girls esp. those from ethnic minorities.

Sure fire way to stay a minority!

btw - I'm far from a rabid anti smoker. I just don't like the smell in public places and the way it lingers in your clothes and hair.

Drunken Monkey

15th November 2004, 10:05

Some very interesting news clippings, although obviously with an agenda:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

Thanks for sharing your observations, Mike.

Jamezo

15th November 2004, 10:07

Yes, that is off topic, but worth discussing. Further hyposchrisy in action - why would a government ban smoking form virtually anywhere but your own home and ban virtually all forms of advertising, all 'for the good of the health of the population', yet make no steps at regulating the tobacco growers and cigarette manufacturers. If there was no substantial financial gain (ie through taxes), then I would imagine tobacco would have the same status as marijuana.

smoking has, and always will, cost a country more in healthcare costs than is gained through taxation.

it isn't hypocrisy to try and regulate smoking, while not pushing for a complete ban, regulation is definitely the lesser of two evils in smokers' eyes, and a complete ban would be seen as far more of an intrusion into personal freedom.

it is a matter of balance, at the moment, the social cost of smoking is such that regulation against smoking in public places would do the most good for the people of New Zealand, while minimising outrage from those who feel their freedoms are being diminished in the name of "PC HELEN-LAND HYPOCRISY LOL!"

currently, the outrage at the percieved diminished level of freedom from a complete ban, is seen to outweigh the social cost of private smoking. thus a complete ban is not being pushed.

Dat be da truest shit I ever wrote.

Drunken Monkey

15th November 2004, 10:31

smoking has, and always will, cost a country more in healthcare costs than is gained through taxation.

Which country?

The 2002 figures for NZ indicate total tax revenue from tobacco was 895.3 million (1.9% of all taxes raised, apparently = if someone can confirm the total tax figure for 2002, this would help validate/rubbish the info) The healthcare cost for smoking related diseases was 230.5 million. This is less than the healthcare cost of treating obesity related diseases, at 303 million (although strangely the obesity related cost, while the actual figure is agreed upon in multiple sources, the 'percentage' varies from 2-6% of the total healthcare cost). Sources: WHO, MOH.

Inconsistencies of published NZ data aside, that is one of the reasons why we have been so slow to move on bringing court action against the Tobacco companies here, despite the postive successes in the USA.

In the USA, the tax income from tobacco was indeed much lower than the indicated health-care costs. They could justify the big payout imposed by the courts. We can't.

Just seen on sky/fox news: Hitcher's fears coming to light. The UK is moving to introduce a 'fat food advertising' ban, which will ban advertising of 'fat' foods before 9pm. They are also looking at introducing some form of compulsory red/amber/green sticker system to help people identify what kind of foods they are eating.

Jamezo

15th November 2004, 10:43

thanks for pleasantly suprising me, I didn't know our tax levels were so far removed from the data I have seen for other countries.

it's a shame that the tax is always passed on to the consumer, market economics dictate that no matter where we hit 'em, the tobacco industry only increases prices further? what can you do? set maximum prices? sounds draconian, but it ought to be investigated, unlike the US, we can act with impunity and do whatever we like to the corporations, as we don't have to deal with 'lobbyists' and PAC's.

F5 Dave

15th November 2004, 10:59

Well the fat foods question is a little different in that they are only doing it to themselves & they only bring the (not inconsiderable) health cost burden to the taxpayer & us having to look at their fat arses.

However the question is “am I my brother’s keeper?”

In the fast food case when the target audience is to start them off as children then; YES to an extent I have to be my children’s keeper. Most parents will know that saturation marketing, bright colours toys & clowns mean kids know about & desire going to these places before they even know they have food. They food hooks them for life & it is hard to break an eating habit, one modern human are ill equipped to deal with. How I will deal with this if I have kids will be a dilemma.

But I don’t want to send the topic off debating fast food, just an illustration of companies offering products in such a way to basically addict a young market to becoming dependant to their product with little or no concern for the health implications.

No I don’t propose wrapping people in cotton wool, but when companies are reaming large profit by playing on human weakness & addictive personalities then I think it’s not fair. Gambling would be another example.

Drunken Monkey

15th November 2004, 11:05

no probs - interesting stuff reading further on (it's actually a WHO report focussing on tobacco smuggling!) - No money earned from tobacco tax had to be allocated to Health at all until 2002. This is unlike tax revenue from alcohol and gambling income - a fixed proportion has had to be paid back directly into the related support areas (ie health, gambling addiction support, etc...) They did not specify how much tobacco tax income has to be allocated to health.

Slipstream

15th November 2004, 21:28

The legislation requires bar owners to take all reasonable steps but smokers are allowed to smoke in the open. Since "The Open" is not defined in the legisation one suspects a cetain amount of leeway will be accorded! A semi enclosed balcony for example! (maybe you could open a bar called "The Open" and make a mint?)

That's a brilliant idea....I've been trying to think of a name, for a bar that sponsors and shows bike races, without actually being a 'biker' bar.

The Open, I like that :)

riffer

15th November 2004, 21:36

That's a brilliant idea....I've been trying to think of a name, for a bar that sponsors and shows bike races, without actually being a 'biker' bar.

The Open, I like that :)
You'd probably find it difficult to use that name - sounds a bit too much like something the golf people would already have the rights to. :pinch:

Jamezo

15th November 2004, 22:31

and you'd get geeks tagging "...source revolution!" on your nice big sign. :yeah:

it's alright, just make sure you have a ratio of at least 3 mechanical bulls to every patron. nothing makes a bar succesful like an abundance of animatronic bovines. :hug:

bluninja

16th November 2004, 05:21

I would suggest that unless 51% of the world's population is living in a country/ies that are banning smoking in bars, then it is indeed not a global trend. Fair enough?

That's a global majority not a global trend.

BTW Bhutan has now banned the sale of tobacco....first country to do so
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4012639.stm

Drunken Monkey

16th November 2004, 06:47

That's a global majority not a global trend.

BTW Bhutan has now banned the sale of tobacco....first country to do so
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4012639.stm

Eh? Surely you must see that something has to be done by a 'global majority' in order for it to be 'global'? How can something be a global trend if only a minority of the world pariticipates? Global means the same as world-wide, does it not? If the trend is seen by mostly anglo-saxon countires, then surely it is a mostly anglo-saxon trend?

Paul in NZ

16th November 2004, 07:47

That's a brilliant idea....I've been trying to think of a name, for a bar that sponsors and shows bike races, without actually being a 'biker' bar.

The Open, I like that :)

Careful! The place will be full of bloody golfers

Hitcher

16th November 2004, 07:52

That's a brilliant idea....I've been trying to think of a name, for a bar that sponsors and shows bike races, without actually being a 'biker' bar.
The Open, I like that.
How about "Highsiders"?

Paul in NZ

16th November 2004, 07:53

Eh? Surely you must see that something has to be done by a 'global majority' in order for it to be 'global'? How can something be a global trend if only a minority of the world pariticipates? Global means the same as world-wide, does it not? If the trend is seen by mostly anglo-saxon countires, then surely it is a mostly anglo-saxon trend?

Not really. If something is moving from one state of being in a certain consistent direction then it can be said to be trending in that direction.....

The places you mentioned a scattered all over the globe thus it can legitimately be said to be a global trend. A trend does not imply a majority.

ie A summer fashion trend towards shorter skirts is a legitimate statement but does not imply a majority are wearing short skirts. It assumes that we are refering to women of a certain age group but it does not need to be expressly detailed.

Anyway. Who cares what we say here. The legislation is passed.... if you violently disagree do something about it in the appropriate manner....

Paul N

bluninja

16th November 2004, 08:03

Eh? Surely you must see that something has to be done by a 'global majority' in order for it to be 'global'? How can something be a global trend if only a minority of the world pariticipates? Global means the same as world-wide, does it not? If the trend is seen by mostly anglo-saxon countires, then surely it is a mostly anglo-saxon trend?

I was tempted to reply with more pedantry....but hey; there is a trend...how big that trend is in each country...who knows...or indeed if there is a trend away from accepting passive smoking (have I moved the goal posts here?) in the majority of countries, surface area of the world, or worldwide population to make my 'global' claim proven, non floccus paucus.

BTW I wouldn't want to compete with your 6 weeks of European adventures (cue pissing contest :bleh: ) but I have spent time (holiday and working) in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sicily, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria, Gibraltar, Canary Isles, and Crete. :yes:

Slipstream

16th November 2004, 08:10

Careful! The place will be full of bloody golfers

As long as they're as rich and cute as Tiger Woods and as classy as Happy Gilmore ;) They can stay. Golfers are people too....I think :blink: I mean come on! Who thought of plus 4's anyways? :eek5:

Slipstream

16th November 2004, 08:20

How about "Highsiders"?

That's Ok, but wouldn't that imply crashing and/or being :doobey: ?

I could name it something Ghey like 'The Quarter Mile', or 'Torque' or how bout 'Biker Barn' ooh ooh I know I know, how about .... 'The Dancing Banana' I could have a moving neon sign next to the name :banana:

....um....yeah....

Seriously, I am thinking of owning a bar/pub within the next 5 years, pending on the bar situation in Wellington and passing my Degree.
I have a secret little notebook (which is now not secret) which has all my notes about what my bar will have and be like. Still haven't thought of a name and therefore no icon to go with it. Maybe I'll call it 'The Bar With No Name' . :rolleyes:

F5 Dave

16th November 2004, 08:24

[to the tune of some poxy 70s American song] ‘I got pissed in the city in a bar with no name. . .’

bluninja

16th November 2004, 08:28

It felt good to be out of the rain
In the city you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no smokers for to give you no pain :laugh:

Drunken Monkey

16th November 2004, 08:29

Not really. If something is moving from one state of being in a certain consistent direction then it can be said to be trending in that direction.....

The places you mentioned a scattered all over the globe thus it can legitimately be said to be a global trend. A trend does not imply a majority.

ie A summer fashion trend towards shorter skirts is a legitimate statement but does not imply a majority are wearing short skirts. It assumes that we are refering to women of a certain age group but it does not need to be expressly detailed.

I be convinced by that explaination. Fair example.

Anyway. Who cares what we say here. The legislation is passed.... if you violently disagree do something about it in the appropriate manner....

Paul N

Like I said, my interest is purely academic.

Drunken Monkey

16th November 2004, 08:38

I was tempted to reply with more pedantry....but hey; there is a trend...how big that trend is in each country...who knows...or indeed if there is a trend away from accepting passive smoking (have I moved the goal posts here?) in the majority of countries, surface area of the world, or worldwide population to make my 'global' claim proven, non floccus paucus. :

I didn't question that it was a trend, I don't beleive that enough of the world is moving that way yet to qualify it as 'global'. In a few years time, maybe.

BTW I wouldn't want to compete with your 6 weeks of European adventures (cue pissing contest :bleh: ) but I have spent time (holiday and working) in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Sicily, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Austria, Gibraltar, Canary Isles, and Crete. :yes:

Easy tiger, no-one's pissin on anyone here (I stand corrected - you appear to be trying to piss on me)...Those are the experiences I was asking anyone to call on - I know my experience in Europe is limited, hence the question. I never professed to be a well travelled anthropological expert of Europe! So you've established yourself as a man of the 'globe' - I would like you to share your 'smoking/smokers in pubs/clubs/restaurants/cafes experience' with us for each of those countries!

bluninja

16th November 2004, 09:42

Easy tiger, no-one's pissin on anyone here (I stand corrected - you appear to be trying to piss on me)...Those are the experiences I was asking anyone to call on - I know my experience in Europe is limited, hence the question. I never professed to be a well travelled anthropological expert of Europe! So you've established yourself as a man of the 'globe' - I would like you to share your 'smoking/smokers in pubs/clubs/restaurants/cafes experience' with us for each of those countries!

Perhaps when I write my memoirs :doobey: I would say that the Parisiens could give some english a lesson in arrogance. They smoke where they want, when they want, regardless of the laws brought in a few years ago. They also block the roads and set fire to things in the street if they get upset with any changes the government tries to impose that they don't like.

BTW the pissing contest was in jest.....I just signposted it rather than have somebody accuse me....and I have been getting around I guess for a little longer than you....oh and I forgot Eire.....were you can now get smoke free guiness served at your table :banana:

Blakamin

16th November 2004, 10:23

They smoke where they want, when they want, regardless of the laws brought in a few years ago. They also block the roads and set fire to things in the street if they get upset with any changes the government tries to impose that they don't like.
:
Coool.... I'm part french...time to go to the beehive, smoke a packet of rollies and burn some shit to the ground.... I hate everything the politicians are doing! :devil2:

inlinefour

16th November 2004, 11:06

Vagabond

16th November 2004, 11:17

Too many farkin arseholes think its their right to polute the air around non smokers without a thought hooooooooooraaaaaaaaa!! :first:
:sick: Your type should just lock yourselves up in the house and never venture outside :wavey:

:shake: :yeah: :shake: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Blakamin

16th November 2004, 11:25

Too many farkin arseholes think its their right to polute the air around non smokers without a thought hooooooooooraaaaaaaaa!! :first:
Without a thought?? I normally think of others, but now you call me a "farkin arsehole" next time i'll make a point of being thoughtless :niceone:

[edit] and while it's legal, it IS my right to smoke... :shake:

Paul in NZ

16th November 2004, 11:31

That's Ok, but wouldn't that imply crashing and/or being :doobey: ?

I could name it something Ghey like 'The Quarter Mile', or 'Torque' or how bout 'Biker Barn' ooh ooh I know I know, how about .... 'The Dancing Banana' I could have a moving neon sign next to the name :banana:

....um....yeah....

Seriously, I am thinking of owning a bar/pub within the next 5 years, pending on the bar situation in Wellington and passing my Degree.
I have a secret little notebook (which is now not secret) which has all my notes about what my bar will have and be like. Still haven't thought of a name and therefore no icon to go with it. Maybe I'll call it 'The Bar With No Name' . :rolleyes:

For a bike oriented bar what about 'The One Wheel Drive Inn'?

Sliders? (You could stoppie in for a wheelie quick drink)

Riders?

GP Delux?

The Single Saddle Saloon?

Two Wheels to Paradise (more like a movie?)

I give up. Someone else jump in

F5 Dave

16th November 2004, 11:34

:sick: Your type should just lock yourselves up in the house and never venture outside :wavey:

:shake: :yeah: :shake: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Well perhaps his fairly evocative statement is to be qualified by saying that there are too many people who are thoughtless but isn’t referring to the individuals who are.

This thread isn’t designed to be an all out attack on smokers, I know plenty of people who smoke & if they decide to then that is to an extent their risk. I just don’t want it to be mine. Some people appreciate this & others don’t.

Vagabond

16th November 2004, 14:33

Well perhaps his fairly evocative statement is to be qualified by saying that there are too many people who are thoughtless but isn’t referring to the individuals who are.

This thread isn’t designed to be an all out attack on smokers, I know plenty of people who smoke & if they decide to then that is to an extent their risk. I just don’t want it to be mine. Some people appreciate this & others don’t.
:( Fair enough but had you read previous threads,you would have seen one going on about individuals choice.

Hence leaving it up to owners/patrons to decide where they wish to partake or abstain from siad bad habits!

Fek it all :beer: Give me smoke Give me fast bikes and I'll decide when I want to abstain :done:

Skyryder

16th November 2004, 17:14

Slipstream

17th November 2004, 09:02

[to the tune of some poxy 70s American song] ‘I got pissed in the city in a bar with no name. . .’

It felt good to be out of the rain
In the city you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no smokers for to give you no pain :laugh:

'laaa, laaa, la la-la la, la-la-la ... laaa, la' :killingme

Slipstream

17th November 2004, 09:13

For a bike oriented bar what about 'The One Wheel Drive Inn'?

Then you'd get nutters, like White Trash, actually trying to wheelie through the front door into the bar. He's known for taking bikes into bars you know. Ask him. :devil2:

Sliders? (You could stoppie in for a wheelie quick drink)

:blink:

Gen

9th January 2005, 18:23

Have to say, spent awhile trying to figure out why I could actually see the other people across the room in a pub until I remembered that there was no smoking inside.

I don't mind at all going outside to smoke, because it means I smoke less as it pulls you away from conversation ( and alcohol) to go out in the cold.

Tis a nice break in a hot room to go out for a smoke too, in the cool air.

Good law so it turns out :yeah:

Juan

10th January 2005, 05:55

Was going ask about this one....

What about all you guys who opposed the law?

Has it emptied the bars??

jrandom

10th January 2005, 06:35

Was going ask about this one....

What about all you guys who opposed the law?

Has it emptied the bars??

Nup.

Was talking to the manager at the Crow Bar in Wyndham Street (check it out when you get here) who's been at the place for ages, bought me a drink when I got engaged there six years ago (naturally he doesn't remember doing it), and he commented that business was booming. They've had a lot of patrons remark on the greater pleasantness of the bar's atmosphere now, both in a breathable and in a convivial sense.

It seems the law is working out rather well, so far.

Juan

10th January 2005, 06:52

Sure will try it out... glad to here it's working, can't stand the smell when we get home after the pub....

looking at flights at the moment :2thumbsup

Devil

10th January 2005, 07:28

Have to say, spent awhile trying to figure out why I could actually see the other people across the room in a pub until I remembered that there was no smoking inside.
Ditto, I completely forgot about it, this is how it should have been anyway!
Its great having a nice fresh atmosphere.

Drunken Monkey

10th January 2005, 08:41

Was going ask about this one....

What about all you guys who opposed the law?

Has it emptied the bars??

Well I went to the Horse & Trap on Friday night. It used to be our regular haunt when we worked & lived in Mt Eden, so I haven't been there regularly in the last 2 years. It was, however, the very first time in my memory that I've ever seen the Horse & Trap with so few patrons (4-5 other groups on top of ours) on a Friday night. It was also the first time I've ever been there they've decided to call it quits and call last drinks at 11pm! Midnight or 1am used to be closing. In previous visits, we would normally have expected to squeeze on to one or two of the only free tables.

pete376403

11th January 2005, 22:52

I havent been to a pub in ages so this is only hearsay but my daughter reckons that now the smell of the pubs is BO and farts.

Biff

12th January 2005, 08:57

Hang on - I'm a part time smoker (if there is such a thing) that enjoys a cigar (or similar) with a beer. But I also respect the fact that non-smokers would rather have a drink in a pub, club etc without having to passively smoke (note I don’t use the word force here, as nobody forces people to go into pubs and clubs – it’s a choice).

How can a blanket ban be fair?

"Enter here and you will be in the company of people that smoke cigars", as the name Cigar Bar kind of alludes to should be a more than adequate warning to all but the most naive of fuckwits.

Come on guys n gals - I'm all for respecting the rights of non- smokers and smokers alike. A blanket ban is simply biased. Dedicated cigar bars and similar venues should be given exemption.

James Deuce

12th January 2005, 09:08

"Enter here and you will be in the company of people that smoke cigars", as the name Cigar Bar kind of alludes to should be a more than adequate warning to all but the most naive of fuckwits.

You just described every left wing law maker, speech writer, politician, and self appointed do-gooder in the country.

jrandom

12th January 2005, 09:25

You just described every left wing law maker, speech writer, politician, and self appointed do-gooder in the country.

"The most naïve of fuckwits"?

True dat.

Now *I*, for instance, am heartily in favour of banning smoking in bars. It's for purely selfish reasons, and I couldn't give a toss about doing anyone good. I just happen to be married to an asthmatic and want to take her into bars.

So I'm GLAD that the selfish non-smoking majority managed to stomp on the rights of smokers. Feck the smelly yellow-toothed lot of 'em.

Next time it might be someone trying to stomp on *my* rights, in which case I'll get all pissed off and raise a stink about it.

And that's how the world goes round...