Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by BenReilly, Nov 16, 2004.
This is great... although only part of the answer as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to see more radical thinking employed to many of the problems in this country. Specifically a combination of the problems of these people who smoke, speed in cars AND want to do fox-hunting.
My idea is this...
What we do is give special licenses to these sick blood-lusting bastards that want to do fox hunting and other blood sports that allows, (indeed, requires), them to maintain a loaded shot gun at all times. Then, if they are sitting by the side of a road and someone drives past at too high a speed OR, if they are sitting in a restaurant and someone lights up... BLAM... stitch that mutha-fvcker.
Some here may call my idea too avant garde but I prefer to call it 'blue sky' thinking.
How about cricket? I heard they actually whack balls randomly! God that's so horrible and sick!
Welcome to the United States of Europe...
Er, well, no - the balls aren't actually alive y'see. Foxes are.
Also the people doing the hunting don't actually eat the fox so it's not like this is anything about getting sustenance. It's simply about a load of middle aged, middle and upper class twats who probably can't get it up anymore doing something, (chasing and killing living things for fun), that they stopped the rest of us doing years ago such as dog and ******** fighting, bull and bear-baiting, etc.
If a couple of working class blokes in Birmingham or Cleethorpes decided to get a few dogs together and let them tear another dog apart, (a fox is just a wild dog essentially), there'd be all hell to pay. The only reason this is still going on is because of the people who do it. Nothing more, nothing less.
A sport where they "whack balls randomly"?
Sounds like MLS to me,
If one looks at the health and economic stats, they will very quickly understand why they are taking such action against smoking (particularly in Scotland).
I find it quite amusing how the right wingers up here (that'll be Gerald Warner, then) who are stating that it is the individual's right to smoke if they want to. I suppose they would say the same if we were talking about heroin, for example?
Well said that man.
Careful England, smoking ban kills. Maybe.
That toothbrush ban didn't work out that well either.
Our smoking bans came in after a couple of successful lawsuits by ex-employees of pubs and clubs, who developed lung cancer due to passive smoking.
Smoking bans are idiocy. Nobody is forced to work in a bar where smoking is allowed. And nobody's forced to sit there. Let the owner decide (if there's a market...) and if that's not enough at least leave the choice to develop a segregated smoking area.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
For those of us who value human life, it makes sense.
Get real Ben... if I want to smoke, I smoke. If there are segregated smoking and non-smoking areas, or non-smoking bars for those who don't want to smoke... it's my choice and the bar owner's.
they passed this last year in Ireland when it seemed like you were required to smoke in the pubs. So if it is working there, it could work anywhere
Wherever smoking bans are enforced, consumption declines.
The weakest part of your argument is that employees deserve to die because they took the job. As if anyone working at a bar had really great alternatives to begin with.
So work at one of the non-smoking bars or apply for the non-smoking area.
The world is full of dangerous and unhealthy jobs. If you don't want them, don't apply for them. Simple as that.
The weak part of your argument is that you simply lack one. Free choice is the key word here.
Ok, it is legal for an 18-year old in the US to buy a gun, but it is not to buy a beer? And you want to tell us what is appropriate and how to save someone's life? common...
If they want to smoke, let them smoke. Inside. It is up to them to work there, as well as it would be up to you to go to the military. From yopur point of view the US invading another country would be illegal, because the soldiers, employers of the US Army, could be killed. They knew that there was that risc when they signed in, as well as an employer in a smoking bar does know that.
Help your local Kneipenowner ;-)
I'd be willing to wager, that many bartenders make more $$$ than you do.. In the right place, it can be quite lucrative, given the amount of hours you work
Maybe Skip could chime in here, but I was listening to a story on NPR where in Japan it seems to be a growing trend to switch from the corporate world and find these "bartender" jobs. It has to do with being happy and not always making the biggest paycheck. Japanese counter-culture is rather cute.
The bottom line is that passive smoking is an avoidable risk, and employers have a responsibility to provide the safest workplace possible. Avoidable risks must be eliminated and unavoidable risks must be reduced as much as possible.
It's like employing people to remove asbestos, not providing any safety equipment and then saying 'well, if you don't like it, you can quit'.
Actually, from my point of view, you're just another poster making idiotic analogies.
It's unclear whether they know the risks, but in many areas we do not allow workers to assume dangerous risks. Banning smoking in public places is a reasonable safety regulation that saves lives.
Indoors I agree 100%. Outdoors (public) is a hard agenda to push.
I got back from England a couple of weeks ago and was really surprised of how many more people are smoking again, especially younger people. I mean a lot and it was noticeable.
What's that all about, counter culture, backlash to the anti-smoking ads?
Who knows....but it's still a filthy fucking habit.
All bullsh!t aside, it is a great law to ban it. From a smoker who struggled with quitting, it makes it a lot easier when you dont have temptation in a bar. From a selfish standpoint, the habit kicks in after a a few pints, and some cute women reaches for a cigaerette.... without the temptation it is much easier to quit. Of course you can bum one outside, but the bottom line is overall, it DOES decrease consumption....
And although I disagree with Ben Reileys (barteneder) logic, it does decrease a smokey bar for everyone else.... much less dry cleaning after work, if nothign else.
And if I want to smash a glass in your boat-race that's my choice as well, is it? You attack my lungs - I attack your face. What's the difference?
So we can extend this idea to crack cocaine as well, can we?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
Do you read? I said there is a choice. You don't have to ban period. You can please all by creating the possibility of segregated smoking and non-smoking areas, or let the market take care of the need for non-smoking bars.
If you don't want me to ******** up your lungs... take a seat in the non-smoking area.
What's the difference?
In the situation I described... choice.
If it would be within the law.... why not.
So the smoking bartender should be protected from smoke (and before you come up with a dumb answer, remember the 'ideal' situation I'm thinking about)