Netherlands overturns draconian smoking ban

[GommeInc]

Only within the past few years, you can still go for a drink and food - you simply would go to a non-smoking pub.

But to allow smoking pubs would assume there are benefits to smoking. It would be wise to just remove smoking altogether. Sure, you could say that choice should be down to the individuals and land owners, but some can't think for themselves. Land owners allowing smoking are taking advantage of the people who are wasting their time, money and lives by smoking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My god, the fact that not everyone has a pub near them so they don't always get that choice.

I actually give up, continue to be stubborn

That is the free market at work, some of us have certain things in our area - some don't. You can't have everything.

But to allow smoking pubs would assume there are benefits to smoking. It would be wise to just remove smoking altogether. Sure, you could say that choice should be down to the individuals and land owners, but some can't think for themselves. Land owners allowing smoking are taking advantage of the people who are wasting their time, money and lives by smoking.

The same can be said for alcohol, to allow pubs to continue would assume there are benefits to drinking.

I stated before; people smoke for enjoyment just as people consume unhealthy food and drink for enjoyment.

[cocaine]

Smokers lose their rights when they light up their first ciggarette.

dont think so mate. you're saying something similar to 'individuals lose their rights when they drunkenly cause harm to someone else'. what do you say to that then?

[GommeInc]

The same can be said for alcohol, to allow pubs to continue would assume there are benefits to drinking.

I stated before; people smoke for enjoyment just as people consume unhealthy food and drink for enjoyment.

Main difference I can think of is alcohol isn't as damaging to people around you or yourself and it's easy to get off being dependent, plus some alcoholic drinks are supposedly good for you, like wine


And smoking for enjoyment is a lame excuse, no-one has properly smoking for entertainment since the 1800s and early 1900s. When commoners started smoking it went down hill and just became annoying addictions rather than enjoyment - doing it for the sake of it, rather than for social reasons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Main difference I can think of is alcohol isn't as damaging to people around you or yourself and it's easy to get off being dependent, plus some alcoholic drinks are supposedly good for you, like wine

And smoking for enjoyment is a lame excuse, no-one has properly smoking for entertainment since the 1800s and early 1900s. When commoners started smoking it went down hill and just became annoying addictions rather than enjoyment - doing it for the sake of it, rather than for social reasons.

Smoking is for enjoyment (relaxation mainly) just as is alcohol, I suppose the argument about damaging to people around you does stand up - but again I bring in the point that if you were to be concerned about health to such a degree, passive smoking is the least of your worries with the likes of fatty foods, salty foods, GM foods you most likely consume on a regular basis - and to add to that, if so concerned about health you certainly wouldn't be drinking which is also damaging to health.

Passive smoking and smoking in general has been greatly demonised when far bigger threats to health exist out there.

[GommeInc]

Smoking is for enjoyment (relaxation mainly) just as is alcohol, I suppose the argument about damaging to people around you does stand up - but again I bring in the point that if you were to be concerned about health to such a degree, passive smoking is the least of your worries with the likes of fatty foods, salty foods, GM foods you most likely consume on a regular basis - and to add to that, if so concerned about health you certainly wouldn't be drinking which is also damaging to health.

Main difference between the two relaxation methods is that smoking isn't kept to yourself, it affects those around you as well so if you have non-smoking friends it's a bit unfair and you only really mix with other smokers or non-smokers whom don't care, while alcohol can be kept to yourself without directly affecting others (unless you begin to drink too much). Health is a huge area for discussion - unhealthy foods are still food and food is a necessity, you could live longer with them compared to smoking which has no benefits.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Main difference between the two relaxation methods is that smoking isn't kept to yourself, it affects those around you as well so if you have non-smoking friends it's a bit unfair and you only really mix with other smokers or non-smokers whom don't care, while alcohol can be kept to yourself without directly affecting others (unless you begin to drink too much). Health is a huge area for discussion - unhealthy foods are still food and food is a necessity, you could live longer with them compared to smoking which has no benefits.

But again this is the point; let people make that choice. If there is such an anti-smoking mood then most pubs will cater for the non-smokers and a small minority of pubs would allow smoking which smokers would use. I personally feel that most people do not care less (and a lot of people have a smoke just when they go out) and we'd have a pretty balanced system without government and police interference.

We know passive smoking has been over exaggerated; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...res-again.html with the WHO declaring that passive smoking does not cause cancer. The idea that you face some grave threat when you walk into a smoke-filled pub is laughable, the effects are probably the same as when you go to the pumps to fill up your car and breathe in petrol fumes - no effects what so ever.

[Chippiewill]

We know passive smoking has been over exaggerated; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...res-again.html with the WHO declaring that passive smoking does not cause cancer. The idea that you face some grave threat when you walk into a smoke-filled pub is laughable, the effects are probably the same as when you go to the pumps to fill up your car and breathe in petrol fumes - no effects what so ever.

I'm not worried about the cancer, I just don't want to be inside a public building that stinks of smoking. Pubs are far more pleasant places to be inside nowadays.

[alexxxxx]

Smoking is safe, I believe alcohol kills brain cells anyway does it not?

Nothing is 'safe' - everything you consume will affect you in someway or other, smoking has been made to look more dangerous than it actually is compared to drinking. Smoking (unlike drinking and drugs in general) doesn't change you - drinking and drugs can make you 'lose' yourself whereas smoking doesn't have that affect.

Smoking in moderation can be fine, it calms a lot of people down.



Harmed? you are harmed by many things in someway or other. It would be like somebody who is allergic to pollen demanding that the local flower display at the park is uprooted because it has a negative affect on them.

the netherlands model is a good one. a very very good one.

If you do not like smoke and feel it has a great effect on you, then you could simply go to a pub where smoking is not allowed. You know, freedom of choice without state/busybody interference as the video shows?

smoking is not safe, nor is alcohol, don't be so ridiculous.

and no, that analogy is not the same. EVERYONE is harmed by smoke, NOT EVERYONE is harmed by pollen.

get real, in most places there is not enough competition in pubs/bars to allow for a gap in the market for non-smokers pubs. most landlords are unlikely to say goodbye to 10-20% of their possible trade.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not worried about the cancer, I just don't want to be inside a public building that stinks of smoking. Pubs are far more pleasant places to be inside nowadays.

Then go to a non-smoking pub.

Use your brain and make a decision for yourself.

smoking is not safe, nor is alcohol, don't be so ridiculous.

and no, that analogy is not the same. EVERYONE is harmed by smoke, NOT EVERYONE is harmed by pollen.

get real, in most places there is not enough competition in pubs/bars to allow for a gap in the market for non-smokers pubs. most landlords are unlikely to say goodbye to 10-20% of their possible trade.

I didn't say they were safe, quite the opposite - cars are also not safe but I don't propose banning them.

In terms of smoke, what do you class as harm? there is next to no harm, and if you are in a pub you are being harmed anyway by consuming alcohol. The pollen example, everybody who is allergic to pollen is affected by it.

There is a gap judging from all of your horrified reactions to the proposal that people should be allowed to light up in a pub, again as I stated before - in this thread i've had a manner of pathetic excuses for banning it thrown at me and still nobody can explain the point of freedom of choice that i'm making. It seems people are infected with this belief that they have a right to trample over the freedom of others - not just with this issue but with many others. Are we now all so dull and stupid that we are incapable of making our own decisions?

I thought you were a libertarian anyway, seemingly not.