MSE News: Budget 2012: Cigarette prices to rise tonight

custardy

Mista_C wrote: »

There's nothing angry about it. If you're reading the post as angry that says more about you than it does me I'm afraid. I do admit that I wouldn't normally talk this way but I'm trying to be concise in my posts as text can be easily misread.



It's not how I refer to them, it's a general descriptive term for when talking in this context, as I previously pointed out. I don't consider myself a non-driver, I simply don't drive but when I'm asked within that context I am labelled a non-driver. I'm quite sure you know that though and you simply want to get as much meat from that bone as possible.

What I'm saying is non/anti-smokers complained that smoking inside these facilities was detrimental to their health, I quite agree. The majority of this section of the public didn't like the idea of smoking areas or rooms as the smoke could still drift into the non-smoking areas and therefore we quite happy that smokers could go outside. I remember reading many a gleeful post on the internet that smokers would have to stand in the cold, wind and rain. I'm more than happy to do that myself, I find these places stuffy and too hot.

If they don't want to be engulfed in a foul smell whilst enjoying their meal then they have the option of eating indoors where they claimed they wanted to do so, without the foul smell, in the first place.

They complained that they wanted to sit indoors but didn't like the smoke and smokers should go outside, now there's complaints that they want to sit outside but the smokers are there. That my friend is wanting it both ways.

There's lots of things I don't want in pubs whilst enjoying a meal I've paid for. I don't want peoples unsupervised kids running around and under my table, I don't want to listen to Frank Doberman ranting and swearing at the table next to me, I don't want to have to smell some of the atrocious perfumes and aftershaves all mingling together like some kind of chemical weapon but alas, it's something I have to put up with if I choose to put myself in the environment they frequent. Likewise if I choose to sit inside then I know I can expect smoke-free (which is preferable while eating my meal) but if I choose to sit outside then I need to expect smoke, or car fumes, or the smell of burning circuitry from the nearby recycling plants.

again.you seem to be deciding smokers have some rights with regard to forcing people to be inside, if they don't smoke
other smells are moot.
they are there for people whether they are smoking or not.
smoking is optional,yet you have decided it should be fine to fill the air with smoke and if folks don't like it,then tough. get indoors.

Mista_C

custardy wrote: »

again.you seem to be deciding smokers have some rights with regard to forcing people to be inside, if they don't smoke
other smells are moot.
they are there for people whether they are smoking or not.
smoking is optional,yet you have decided it should be fine to fill the air with smoke and if folks don't like it,then tough. get indoors.

No, society decided that smokers were to be forced outside, I'm fine with that btw. Sitting inside or outside is optional yet if you take the option to sit outside you know to expect that smokers will be there. That wasn't decided by me or other smokers, that was decided by the mostly non-smoking public.

The other smells aren't moot, and yes they'll be there whether we smoke or not, but the point is if we don't like them we have the option to take ourselves away from them. I don't need to have lit the fire to know that it is hot, if I opt to put my hand in there I should expect to get burnt. I am responsible for whatever consequences occur of the environment I put myself in.

I'm not arguing that smoking indoors at these facilities should have been banned, I'm saying that if you know that there are going to be smokers at the outdoor tables and you don't like smoke, why on Earth would you opt to sit out there with them then complain about the smoke? It's like standing in out in the rain then complaining that it's wet.

Lotus-eater

custardy wrote: »

again.you seem to be deciding smokers have some rights with regard to forcing people to be inside, if they don't smoke
other smells are moot.
they are there for people whether they are smoking or not.
smoking is optional,yet you have decided it should be fine to fill the air with smoke and if folks don't like it,then tough. get indoors.

I'm afraid as long as there are smokers, then they do have some rights.
They've been forced outside, which I agree with totally, but Mista is right, you can't have it both ways.
If you banned smoking on public house premises, I guess many would go out of business overnight, then you would no doubt complain they weren't there anymore.

custardy

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I'm afraid as long as there are smokers, then they do have some rights.
They've been forced outside, which I agree with totally, but Mista is right, you can't have it both ways.
If you banned smoking on public house premises,Iguess many would go out of business overnight, then you would no doubt complain they weren't there anymore.

I can't have it both ways?
sorry,I have to accept someone filling my air with smoke whilst eating/drinking?
hows that?
seems the same as the bankers. Oh don't be too hard or there will be consequences
a simple bit of consideration for others.
my non smoking(as smokers feel some need to label) affects nobody while im sitting.
why do smokers feel it should be different for others?

geordie_joe

custardy wrote: »

I can't have it both ways?

No, you can't.

custardy wrote: »

sorry,I have to accept someone filling my air with smoke whilst eating/drinking?

Well for one thing it's not your air, and for another, you don't have to eat near smokers. They have been forced out side because people like didn't want them inside while they were eating, so why do you go outside and sit next to them?

custardy wrote: »

a simple bit of consideration for others.

Exactly, they've stopped smoking inside, so why don't you stop eating near them when they are outside?

custardy wrote: »

why do smokers feel it should be different for others?

They don't, they have been told to smoke outside and that's what they do, if you go near them then it is your own fault.

Inside is a small space, but outside is the whole f...ing world, so why do you insist on being near them?

ilovecheese

I smoke.

I go to Belgium once a year with OH, we buy 6kg of tobacco for approx £400.00 and that lasts us a year.

Yes I am aware the indicitive limit has been reduced to 1kg per person, but I still plan to bring back 6kg next time I go.

I like to think of myself as a considerate smoker, if I am outside and I am close to other people I do ask if they mind if I smoke, if I go to a cafe and sit outside, I choose seats as far away as possible from other people. I never throw my cigette butts out of the car or on the floor.

However, if I am already smoking, and someone sits near me and then has a moan, quite frankly tough titties! Go and sit somewhere else!!!

Mista_C

custardy wrote: »

sorry,I have to accept someone filling my air with smoke whilst eating/drinking?
hows that?

No, you don't. that's why smokers were forced outside, so those who don't smoke can sit inside without their air being filled with smoke, which is how, I remember, those who don't smoke wanted it back when the smoking ban was announced.

seems the same as the bankers. Oh don't be too hard or there will be consequences

Sorry, I don't get how this fits.

a simple bit of consideration for others.
my non smoking(as smokers feel some need to label) affects nobody while im sitting.

Consideration was given for others, by forcing smokers outside so people could sit inside without being affected by smoke. Actually, your non-smoking affects not only smokers, as it was smokers who were forced outside so those who don't smoke can sit inside comfortably, but anyone, smoking or otherwise who would choose to spend a drink or meal in the company of a smoker. Either they go outside with them or are forced to in order to stay in their company. As that label seems to bother you so much would you prefer I say you don't smoke? Then I can refer to smokers as non-don't smokers.

why do smokers feel it should be different for others?

I don't see how they do. The majority of smokers just accepted that outside we go if we want to partake in our habit, that is what was forced upon us by the government on behalf of those who wanted to partake in the activities of these establishments. Most smokers accepted that others might want to join in with the festivities but not with the tar and nicotine.

Let's put this a different way. I choose to smoke, you choose not to. My smoking would negate your choice, but not vice-versa. My choice leads to another choice of going outside to smoke, or staying inside and not smoking. If I stay inside then I MUST accept that I can't smoke in order that I don't infringe upon YOUR choice but your argument is if you choose to outside then the smokers should either not smoke while you're there or leave and go somewhere else. If you make the choice to go where the smokers are then that's on your head I'm afraid.

May I suggest that if those who don't smoke want to go outside, where they know the smokers have been forced to sit, to partake in their meal and/or drink then all of the smokers be forced inside? That way our nasty, filthy habit is confined to the walls of the establishment and you get nice clean air outside wherever you want knowing that the smokers are safely tucked up out of your way.

custardy

you were not forced anywhere
I dont recall legislation making smoking outside a requirement?

Lotus-eater

I don't recall legislation forcing you to sit outside next to someone smoking either.

Legislation exists to keep you from smoke inside. It doesn't exist for outside. That's the law, if you want to change it, talk to your MP.

custardy

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I don't recall legislation forcing you to sit outside next to someone smoking either.

Legislation exists to keep you from smoke inside. It doesn't exist for outside. That's the law, if you want to change it, talk to your MP.

well thats where the courtesy to others comes in
seems many need legislation to tell them what to do.....