Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Questions for the Team Captains...

  • #1
    Administrators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,414 admin DeVore


    Ok, in true big Brother fashion I think we should put three searching questions to each of the team captains tomorrow evening. They have till Monday to answer them comprehensively... (remember they cant see this forum :) )

    Post up to three questions here (aimed at each team) and I'll post them in Logos tomorrow evening. If you can only think of one question for one team then post that anyway and I'll pick the best 3 questions and post them in there tomorrow.

    I love this idea , well done to the two people who came up with it!

    DeV.


Comments



  • I've told the captains that they have to be ready for this:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155626

    I have to say this tickles my funny bone.

    One question I've been dying to ask is:

    "What would be so wrong with a separate room in a pub where there was no waiter service and which was cleaned only at night after being ventilated. Beer would be served only in the non-smoking room and the smokers would have to come out and get it through two sets of doors (which is how toilets are regulated for separation from the bar area... two doors).
    Where is the health risk in a slightly smelly room? Can it be any worse then cycling near a Dublin Bus??"


    DeV.




  • I would like The against compromise group to be asked the following question


    What proof do you have have that the smoking ban in pubs will make enough health improvement to bar workers that will make the negative economic and social effects such as prospective job losses in the hospitality industry and lost revenue to the exchequer justifiable considering a recent study published by The British Medical Council which estimates that 1000 people in the U.K. die from passive smoking each year .

    Given that the population of the U.K. Is 60 million that equates to 0.0016% of
    the population which when translated to our population of 3.5 million amounts to 56 people per year will die from the effects of passive smoking in Ireland.

    To put the risk into perespective that is less than the number of people who die each year from falling down stairs and less than the annual figure for accidental deaths in the workplace . It would be reasonable to assume that not all 56 of these deaths are of bar staff so the actual number of deaths of bar staff from passive smoking is actually minuscule.

    Taking into consideration The Actual Danger as illustrated by these figures and the negative economic effects the smoking ban has had on the American/Canadian bar trade and the possibilities of a large number of job losses in the hospitality industry here in conjunction with lost revenue to the state from tobacco taxes which will have to be made up from either cuts in services or an substantial increase in our already high taxes is the smoking ban in Pubs not equivalent to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer and will end up hitting already overburdened taxpayers even harder in their pocket for very little benefit? What next from the nanny state are well all going to have to live and work in one story buildings?




  • I kinda have a question that I will get to in a moment. Firstly though, Muppet, I am still not convinced of the economic impact. Tourism and income figures in NYC were, I believe, up last month when they were released. The Playwirght Inn in Foxrock sold for 8.1million yesterday, that was at least what was expected. Either the guy that paid that money for it is from an other planet, organised everything by fax and has no idea that smoking has been banned here OR he does not think it is a problem. I think the latter.

    And so to my question. Having safety equipment in the workplace costs money. When any piece of Health and safety legislation is imposed on industry it is greeted with cries of "oh no, our profits, this will cost jobs." Employer is dangerous industries are now legally required to provide safety equipment for their employees. This effects the bottom line. I'm sure some company director swore it would cost jobs. The laws were passed anyway and lives are being saved every day. The smoking ban is a little like this. It is supposed to save lives. It is supposed to give the workers a safer enviroment and maybe it does. Comprmise is a cop out. I do not see construction companies applying for a special "I don't give a fcuk my staff give me a H&S safety equipment" license. It does not happen, if you are on a site you wear the gear no compromise. It is ****, it is uncomfortable and a lot of the time it might not even be neccessary but hey thems the rules. They are in place because they will save lives. There is a really good chance that down the line the smoking ban will save lives too. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but if there is a chance it will I think it is worth it.

    So finally we come to my question. Given all the laws we already have in place to protect workers from various dangers other than smoking, none of which have compromises what makes your desire to smoke more important than the health of someone who has to work where you are smoking? Don't give me the "people don't have to work there if they don't like the smoke." That is smoking apologist bull****. I worked in bars in the north for years and it was the only work I could get. Some people do not have a choice. This bring me to another question. Why is your desire to smoke in a pub, rather than outside it, more important than someones desire to work in that same pub without putting his life at risk? My final question is why can you not understand that having smoking and non-smoking pubs in a pathetic attempt at a compromise? You know it will not work. Non-smokers will end up in smoking pubs. So what you say, they have a choice. Yeah well maybe they do but it is hobsons choice. Be in a nice environment with some mates missing or be in a smokey envirnonment. The reason the people causeing no harm are expected to compromise and the people hiding behind the addiction say that they cannot. Just one more question. Why are your rights more important than mine.

    MrP




  • Originally posted by DeVore
    What would be so wrong with a separate room in a pub where there was no waiter service and which was cleaned only at night after being ventilated.
    cough

    I'm sure both sides could twist that study for their own ends as the devil twists scripture though.




  • Originally posted by DeVore
    "What would be so wrong with a separate room in a pub where there was no waiter service and which was cleaned only at night after being ventilated. Beer would be served only in the non-smoking room and the smokers would have to come out and get it through two sets of doors (which is how toilets are regulated for separation from the bar area... two doors).

    DeV.

    They already have one - its called 'Outside'!

    Hyzepher


  • Advertisement


  • Sceptre, those children *live* in that room... I'm only suggesting a room which is cleaned once a day (takes what... 10 minutes?) where smokers could go to indulge in their disgusting habit (oh its great being a non-smoker :) )

    Pudding, I'm sure theres a question in that speech somewhere... I'll try and find it later! :p


    DeV.




  • Originally posted by Hyzepher
    They already have one - its called 'Outside'!

    Hyzepher

    Ok... a room where it doesnt rain and the wind doesnt blow through you :p

    DeV.




  • A question for the for compromise side.

    How can one explain the recent record sale of a Dublin licensed premises for 8.1 million euros in the light of the complaints made by publicans and the VFI, prior to the introduction of the ban, on how it (the ban) would impact on their livlihoods? While this is only one premises, surely it indicates that publicans don't see the ban as having a considerable affect on their livlihoods and as such their calls for a compromise are flawed.




  • Why not make barstaff wear Has-Mat suits or airfiltration masks?
    seriously, all other workplaces, factories/offices no smoking- fine, its a private workplace, but the catering industry surely stands in a slightly different category where they "cater" to the demands/needs of their customers.

    Tbh i think my vending machine only, smoker friendly bar with intel-bunny suited cleaning staff could make me a fortune.




  • Originally posted by The Muppet

    Taking into consideration The Actual Danger as illustrated by these figures and the negative economic effects the smoking ban has had on the American/Canadian bar trade and the possibilities of a large number of job losses in the hospitality industry here in conjunction with lost revenue to the state from tobacco taxes which will have to be made up from either cuts in services or an substantial increase in our already high taxes is the smoking ban in Pubs not equivalent to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer and will end up hitting already overburdened taxpayers even harder in their pocket for very little benefit? What next from the nanny state are well all going to have to live and work in one story buildings?

    Woah...hang on a second there -- what negative economic effects of the smoking ban in Canada? Unless you've got statistics from since certain cities implemented it....in Ottawa we had exactly the same uproar about "Oh, half the pubs will be forced to close, etc. etc. " and we have an actual winter in Ottawa.

    What happened in the end / two years later? F**k all. At the very start of the ban in Ottawa there were a few pubs that closed claiming that they had been irreperably damaged by the smoking ban but most of them were bought by competent managers and re-opened. All the rest of them (and we went through an entire winter with this) simply opened up a 3-side covered outdoor section with heaters and people lived.

    As far as I can see - there's no reason why pubs/bars/whatever should suffer economic damage in Dublin. You have no real winter to speak of, and the slight inconvenience of having people go outside to smoke for five minutes and then come back in is not going to stop people from going out. Worst case scenario is they get a bit wet from the rain; and even then, pubs could easily put up extended canopies or something else.


  • Advertisement


  • Originally posted by The Muppet
    What proof do you have have that the smoking ban in pubs will make enough health improvement to bar workers that will make the negative economic and social effects such as prospective job losses in the hospitality industry and lost revenue to the exchequer justifiable considering a recent study published by The British Medical Council which estimates that 1000 people in the U.K. die from passive smoking each year .

    Given that the population of the U.K. Is 60 million that equates to 0.0016% of
    the population which when translated to Ireland's population of 3.5 million amounts to 56 people per year in Ireland.

    Well if we're going to play the stats game, according to Health Canada more than 1000 people died in Canada from second-hand smoke last year. Our population is half England's so that's ~120 people in Ireland per year that would die from smoking in the workplace.

    Now, according to the National Safety Council, 150 people died on Irish roads in the month of December over the last four years; 40% of those were alcohol-related which is about 50.

    So.... let's see.... working in a bar (or anywhere that you have to breathe in second-hand smoke) should be anywhere between 5 to 10 times more likely to kill you than just driving on the roads in Ireland?

    Hmmm....


    <rant> sorry if I came off prickish; I hate stats ... </rant>




  • Originally posted by casper-

    <rant> sorry if I came off prickish; I hate stats ... </rant>

    Not at all I hate stats myself but in this instance they serve my purpose of playing devils advocate in this debate and I would be interested to see how they are countered if asked.




  • Originally posted by The Muppet
    Not at all I hate stats myself but in this instance they serve my purpose of playing devils advocate in this debate and I would be interested to see how they are countered if asked.

    Fair enough :) Maybe someone from the actual debating team should take some of my stats if the question gets asked...heh :)

    (Or maybe I should just sign up for the debating team in the next round myself and not be so damn lazy)




  • Can you prove that the smoking ban in pubs will make enough health improvements to bar workers that will make the negative economic and social effects of the ban such as prospective job losses in the hospitality industry and lost revenue to the exchequer justifiable?

    A recent study published by The British Medical Council estimates that 1000 people in the U.K. die from passive smoking each year. The population of the U.K. is 60 million so that equates to 0.0016% of the population. When translated to Ireland's population of 3.5 million that amounts to 56 people die from passive smoking in this country each year.

    To put the risk into perspective that figure is less than the number of people who die each year from falling down stairs and is less than the annual figure for accidental deaths in the workplace. It would be reasonable to assume that not all 56 of these deaths are of bar staff so the actual number of deaths of bar staff from passive smoking is actually miniscule.

    In my opinion, the dangers are exaggerated by the pro ban group as illustrated by these figures so could you answer following questions.

    Considering the negative economic effects the smoking ban has had on the American/Canadian bar trade and the possibilities of job losses in the hospitality industry here is the ban in pubs necessary?

    Assuming lost revenue to the state from tobacco taxes will have to be recovered from cuts in services or a substantial increase in our existing taxes, is the economic cost of smoking ban a price worth paying for such a small benefit?

    Is the ban in pubs really necessary when you weigh up all the negative effects against the actual risk as illustrated?

    What are we expect next from our nanny state, can we expect to be forced to live and work in single story buildings?


    Basically this is the same question as above but is just worded slighly differently to make it easier to digest. All figures are accurate from web sources




  • Muppet, I don't think you and the pro ban people are ever going to agree. There is 1 simple reason for this and it is this. Most of the people who support the ban, both smokers and non-smokers, are of the belief that if there is a chance that even 1 person is saved by the ban then it is worth it. It's that simple. It seems that for you, and the people with the same opinon as you, a persons life is of a lesser value than your right to potentially damage that same persons health.

    That is what it comes down to. Smoking probably damages the health of the people around the smoker, whether they smoke or not. Therefore, banning smoking in the workplace will probably save lives. I'm sorry but you cannot argue with that. If you work on a building site you have to, amongst many other things, wear a hard hat. They can get uncomfortable, especially when it is warm. Should we have a compromise to that law so that when you start to sweat you can take your hard hat off? No? Why not? Bus drivers and airplane pilots are not allowed to do their job drunk. I don't think that is fair. They have the right to drink just like anyone else. Why is this stupid nanny state government restricting their right to have a drink and go to work. Not having pissed up pilots and bus drivers probably saves lives but is it really fair on the pilots and drivers. We could have a compromise here. We'll let them drive and work on their birthday and paddys day. Who could complain about that? Where is the harm, sure a few people might die but we are talking about these peoples rights here for God's sake. After all it is their right to have a drink.

    While we are at it, there are lots of laws that are a bit ****. There are some people that really annoy me (some of them are non-smokers by the way.) Can we not have a compromise on the whole murder thing. I mean, maybe we could have a quota. That would be cool, everyone can slot 3 people a year. Slottings are not transferable (we don't want to start a black market) and unused slottings do not carry over to the next year. Were is the harm in that. Of course some people are going to die but hey, we have to think about what I want to do.

    **** I could come up with these all day long but I have a poker game to host and i need to start cooking.

    If you want to compromise on a law which is there to save lives then you simply do not give a **** about other people. That is what it boils down to for me. Whatever you think of the law or how it was implemented that is what it boils down to. You see for me every time someone says "I have the right to smoke when I have a pint, there should be a compromise." I can't help thinking that that person is a selfish bastard.

    Anyhoo that is my 2cents.

    MrP




  • I have to agree with MrP there. If the ban saves even 1 life then it is worth it.

    Even if you manage to argue that a compromise is a better solution "financially" you are then saying that its okay to sacrifice someone's life for what is essentially someone else's leisure.

    This is unacceptable.

    I'll make you a deal. pick a member of your immediate family, mother/father/brother/sister/wife/husband/son/daughter. And agree to have them put to death in a painful way (which is how cancer kills you). And I will then agree that a compromise can be valid on the ban.

    But as long as its some random stranger dying, the smokers don't really care, as long as they have their fun...

    as MrP pointed out..

    if you feel that there should be a "compromise" on this despite the fact that a person could suffer because of it, then it is unacceptable.

    All this talk of "nanny state " is complete rubbish. Smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths. If cigerrete's were discovered today or created today knowing what we know, they would be outlawed, but for practical purposes this isn't possible right now.

    Therefore we have to villify it, and those who choose to smoke, SHOULD be made social outcasts. In the long run this WILL benefit everyone. I challenge you to prove otherwise.




  • Originally posted by Memnoch
    I have to agree with MrP there. If the ban saves even 1 life then it is worth it.

    Even if you manage to argue that a compromise is a better solution "financially" you are then saying that its okay to sacrifice someone's life for what is essentially someone else's leisure.

    This is unacceptable.

    I didn't answer these earlier because I didn't want have a debate within a debate. Now that the real debate is over I will reply.


    First off the new law as it applies to Pubs has little effect on me personally as I am neither a drinker nor a smoker. If the alternative is to is to say that it is OK to force any law on us that will save a life or two well then yes IMO it is OK to sacrifice a couple of lives per year to protect our freedom of choice.

    I don't think those pushing this view have thought it through to its conclusion. Today we hear that salt is a major killer, Is it to be made illegal? Excuse me for being pedantic but there are numerous hazards we come across in every day life that have the potential to do us harm , should they all be outlawed or are these hazards just part and parcel of leading a normal existence?

    Originally posted by Memnoch

    I'll make you a deal. pick a member of your immediate family, mother/father/brother/sister/wife/husband/son/daughter. And agree to have them put to death in a painful way (which is how cancer kills you). And I will then agree that a compromise can be valid on the ban

    But as long as its some random stranger dying, the smokers don't really care, as long as they have their fun....

    Whats the big hang up with death , The only thing we are guaranteed in life is that one day we'll die and no amount of laws will alter that . I don't know anyone personally that has died from passive smoking.

    Originally posted by Memnoch

    as MrP pointed out..

    if you feel that there should be a "compromise" on this despite the fact that a person could suffer because of it, then it is unacceptable.

    All this talk of "nanny state " is complete rubbish. Smoking is the number one cause of preventable deaths. If cigerrete's were discovered today or created today knowing what we know, they would be outlawed, but for practical purposes this isn't possible right now.

    Therefore we have to villify it, and those who choose to smoke, SHOULD be made social outcasts. In the long run this WILL benefit everyone. I challenge you to prove otherwise.


    True Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death so if their intentions are genuine why are the government not tackling that problem instead of paying it lip service with a law that will have very little benefit for us as indicated by the figures posted earlier.




  • Originally posted by The Muppet

    I don't think those pushing this view have thought it through to its conclusion. Today we hear that salt is a major killer, Is it to be made illegal?


    Alright. Once more for the cheap seats. Smoking has not been made illegal. Is it possible that people could maybe understand this?

    OK salt is harmful. That’s fine. It is an individuals choice whether or not they use salt. If I take salt I potentially harm myself, no-one else. As it stands I cannot buy a big bag of salt and ram it down your throat (I mean I cannot do it legally, that I could not do it). I am sure you are quite happy with this.

    This is actually a very interesting comparison you have made. What you are saying is, effectively, anyone who smokes or otherwise ingests harmful substances should have the right to make people who choose not to ingest these substances ingest them. I have to admit I like it. What do you mean you body is a temple and you don’t eat salt? **** you. Hold him down lads, I’m gonna ram this salt shaker down his throat. What do you mean you don’t drink Muppet, I drink and I may be harming myself **** you I you think I’m gonna just harm myself. Hold him down lads while I pour this bottle of whiskey down his neck.

    How do you like that? They haven’t banned smoking. They have made it illegal to smoke where you may cause harm to others. Simple. Can you understand it?




  • Originally posted by The Muppet

    If the alternative is to is to say that it is OK to force any law on us that will save a life or two well then yes IMO it is OK to sacrifice a couple of lives per year to protect our freedom of choice.
    Not a life or two, this is hundreds of lives being put at risk so that a percentage of the population can indulge in a habbit that puts those lives at a greater risk of developing cancer, just because they work in these environments.
    This isn't about freedom of choice either, if someone wants to smoke they have the choice of going outside, staying at home, or not smoking. The choice hasn't been removed, just limited a bit.
    What about a waitress in a restaraunt, does she get no freedom of choice to work in a safe environment? She could choose a different job but someone has to be a waitress, someone has to be a barman or receptionist or a bellhop in a hotel. This gives everyone the freedom of choice to choose the job they want to do, or have to do, and not be at any additional risk (as you say, there's risk in everything we do after all).

    I don't think those pushing this view have thought it through to its conclusion. Today we hear that salt is a major killer, Is it to be made illegal?
    So if I put salt on my chips it's going to kill you is it, or the guy working in the chipper?

    Excuse me for being pedantic but there are numerous hazards we come across in every day life that have the potential to do us harm , should they all be outlawed or are these hazards just part and parcel of leading a normal existence?
    As was already said, just because there are lot's of harmfull things out there besides passive smoking doesn't mean nothing should be done about this. By your token, why bother trying to improve road safety, or to protect our children from peados. If we can't protect everyone, why bother to help any of them?

    Whats the big hang up with death , The only thing we are guaranteed in life is that one day we'll die and no amount of laws will alter that . I don't know anyone personally that has died from passive smoking.
    Well when you see someone you care about being eaten away from the inside by something thay have no control over and something they never invited upon themselves, then you may have a change of heart.

    True Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death so if their intentions are genuine why are the government not tackling that problem instead of paying it lip service with a law that will have very little benefit for us as indicated by the figures posted earlier.
    How exactly? By banning smoking completely? You can't just take a product then a great many people are addicted to away from them, this would just make them buy from illegal soucres. This is, I'm sure, the first step in eradicating smoking completely in this country, and it's a good step. There is more than can and should be done, but it can't all happen overnight.




  • Originally posted by MrPudding


    It is an individuals choice whether or not they use salt. If I take salt I potentially harm myself, no-one else. As it stands I cannot buy a big bag of salt and ram it down your throat (I mean I cannot do it legally, that I could not do it). I am sure you are quite happy with this.

    Unless you prepare all your own meals from fresh produce that is not true. In todays society most of our diets consist mostly of processed foods. We have no control over the amount of salt used in these foods.

    If we eat out we have no way of knowing how much salt was used in the preparation of our meal. The average person today would have no idea on the amount of salt in their daily diet.
    Originally posted by MrPudding

    This is actually a very interesting comparison you have made. What you are saying is, effectively, anyone who smokes or otherwise ingests harmful substances should have the right to make people who choose not to ingest these substances ingest them.

    Tell me who is forcing you into the pub to ingest these harmful substances , are you not willing to take responsibility for you own health? If you are that concerned at the minuscule chance of doing yourself harm from passive smoking did you go into pubs pre ban. Why are you drinking, don't you know that has negative health implications as well?
    Originally posted by MrPudding

    What do you mean you body is a temple and you don’t eat salt? **** you. Hold him down lads, I’m gonna ram this salt shaker down his throat. What do you mean you don’t drink Muppet, I drink and I may be harming myself **** you I you think I’m gonna just harm myself. Hold him down lads while I pour this bottle of whiskey down his neck.

    How do you like that? They haven’t banned smoking. They have made it illegal to smoke where you may cause harm to others. Simple. Can you understand it?

    Yes I can understand and indeed do understand it. The government are just playing a game with the smoking ban. They introduce a ban that has very little health effect but will gain them maximum positive publicity and cause as little controversy as possible.

    I am only talking about the ban in pubs as I think they are a special case and should be exempt from the ban.


  • Advertisement


  • Originally posted by The Muppet



    Tell me who is forcing you into the pub to ingest these harmful substances , are you not willing to take responsibility for you own health? If you are that concerned at the minuscule chance of doing yourself harm from passive smoking did you go into pubs pre ban. Why are you drinking, don't you know that has negative health implications as well?


    Ah. This point again. First issue. Yes I do have a choice. I can go into a pub or not. The thing is, if I decide to go into a pub my doing that does not potentially harm other people. Also, I am aware of the potential damage I do to myself with drinking. That is a risk I am willing to take. When I drink I do not produce any harmfill byproducts that others are forced to ingest.

    Second issue. And this is the nub of it. What about the people who work there? Don't tell me they can get a job somewhere else cos that is bull****. If you worked in an office before the ban and you were surrounded by smokers who told you "if you don't like it get a job somewhere else" would you have been happy with that?

    Oh yeah and your comment about the minuscule chance of being harmed by passive smoking, 2 things. 1)Again, some people seem to be incapable of getting this into there heads. Even if there is a potential risk only and even if only one life is saved then it is worth it.
    2)Ask the guy who has never smoked in his life and now has cancer if he thinks the risk is minuscule.

    Seriously what is the ****ing problem here people. Can anyone here at this stage seriously deny that passive smoking is harmful to non-smokers? I don't think you can. Allowing a minority section of the community to potentially damage another section of the community simply because 1)They do not have the will power or desire to stop smoking (I am an ex-smoker so I can say this)
    2)They can't be ****ing bothered or don't have the common decency or good manners to go outside.

    Stop ****ing whinging go outside and have a smoke.

    MrP




  • Originally posted by MrPudding

    Second issue. And this is the nub of it. What about the people who work there? Don't tell me they can get a job somewhere else cos that is bull****. If you worked in an office before the ban and you were surrounded by smokers who told you "if you don't like it get a job somewhere else" would you have been happy with that?

    Occupational Hazzard, A lot of occupations have them and always will , if its a problem to you choose a different/safer occupation.

    Originally posted by MrPudding

    Oh yeah and your comment about the minuscule chance of being harmed by passive smoking, 2 things. 1)Again, some people seem to be incapable of getting this into there heads. Even if there is a potential risk only and even if only one life is saved then it is worth it.
    2)Ask the guy who has never smoked in his life and now has cancer if he thinks the risk is minuscule.


    MrP

    Extending a few peoples life by a few years is no grounds for introducing legislation that could possibly cost a lot of jobs and a loss of badly needed revenue to the exchequer.


    Face it You're gonna DIE one day, the government can't legislate against that.


    BTW:reformed smoker I knew you were.:)




  • Originally posted by The Muppet
    Occupational Hazzard, A lot of occupations have them and always will , if its a problem to you choose a different/safer occupation.


    You see here you go exactly what I said not to say. who are you to tell someone they can accept the risks or take a hike. True, many jobs have risks and the workers have to deal with them. Smoking is different it is easy to reduce the risk. You stop people smoking in the workplace. It is simple. People who work in nuclear power stations have a degree of risk and that is that. You cannot tell uranium not to be radioactive. There are risks in a building site, but you cannot tell heavey objects not to fall on peoples heads. Being around smokers is dangerous, you can tell smokers to not smoke in the workplace. You did not answer my question about who you would feel if you were surrounded by smoke at work and told to get a new job if you complained. For someone who claims to understand what I am saying you seem to be doing a great inpression of someone who doesn't have a clue.

    Next, who died and gave you the right to decide that someones live is less important than the possible loss of jobs or a reduction of money to the government. How do you know jobs will be lost? Are we talking the same level of damage we were told would occur when the ban on smoking in the cinemas was brought in? That was going to be a disaster.

    And one final thing. I would rather be on the dole than dead or suffering from cancer. And there my friend is where your job arguement falls flat on its face. Do a survey of hospitality workers and ask them for there preference. 1)dead 2)suffering from cancer 3)on the dole.

    MrP




  • Originally posted by The Muppet

    Face it You're gonna DIE one day, the government can't legislate against that.

    so you're going to die one day.... so no need to protect ppl being killed by passive smoke...

    so lets legalise guns, and distribute them en masse. Ppl should have the right to have fun... no need to protect them from guns

    also lets legalise drinking and driving. So what if some guy runs over someone while drunk.. the guy who got ran over would have died anyways... no need to protect them from drunk drivers

    Lets legalise asbestos in the work place... oh and also, lets stop checking donated blood for hiv... if ppl want hiv free blood they should not get a transfusion

    hey I have a great solution for all our health care problems, lets just not offer any health care at all, feck it whats the point of extending someone's life by a few years? they are just going to die anyways... no more need for healthcare

    while were at it lets also legalise murder? i mean your just gonna die anyways... so if I should come tomorrow and while pointlessly waving a knife in the air happen to accidentally stick it in your chest and you die, thats okay, you're gonna die some day anyways, no point unnecessarily lengthing your life a few years. There is no difference between this and killing someone by forcing them to inhale smoke and get cancer, only difference is that you die slowly with cancer and perhaps more painfully.

    this is quite possible the stupidest statement i've ever seen anyone make on boards.ie




  • Originally posted by Memnoch
    they should not get a transfusion
    this is quite possible the stupidest statement i've ever seen anyone make on boards.ie

    Just check out the against the ban comments they are full of the stupidest and most selfish comments you will see on boards.

    I am coming round to the opinion tha it is pointless to argue with these people. Their motives are pure selfishness. No matter what anyone says they seem to be unable to think about this in a rational way. Any time anyone says something to counter one of there arguements they simply ignore it and trot the same line out again. Muppet is a prime example. Reread his and my posts. He cares not for the opinion of others, like smokers care not for the health of non-smokers.

    MrP




  • Originally posted by Memnoch
    so you're going to die one day.... so no need to protect ppl being killed by passive smoke...

    so lets legalise guns, and distribute them en masse. Ppl should have the right to have fun... no need to protect them from guns

    also lets legalise drinking and driving. So what if some guy runs over someone while drunk.. the guy who got ran over would have died anyways... no need to protect them from drunk drivers

    Lets legalise asbestos in the work place... oh and also, lets stop checking donated blood for hiv... if ppl want hiv free blood they should not get a transfusion

    hey I have a great solution for all our health care problems, lets just not offer any health care at all, feck it whats the point of extending someone's life by a few years? they are just going to die anyways... no more need for healthcare

    while were at it lets also legalise murder? i mean your just gonna die anyways... so if I should come tomorrow and while pointlessly waving a knife in the air happen to accidentally stick it in your chest and you die, thats okay, you're gonna die some day anyways, no point unnecessarily lengthing your life a few years. There is no difference between this and killing someone by forcing them to inhale smoke and get cancer, only difference is that you die slowly with cancer and perhaps more painfully.

    this is quite possible the stupidest statement i've ever seen anyone make on boards.ie

    To use your style of argument

    Hey Lets make salt illegal it kills people, lets stop people from going upstairs that;ll save another 50 or so a year, lets take all traffic off the roads that'll save hundreds of lives. Now see how silly your argument is.

    As i said earlier the smoking ban in pubs which is what we are talking about will save very few lives if any, If you can produce evidence that contadicts this may change that opinion. To say that any law that saves a life must be a good thing is so easy to disprove that I don't fell there is any need to. Any sensibile person that thinks that statement through can come up with numerous laws that have the potential to save lives but will never be implemeted because the cost either financially or socially would be too great.

    Again I ask who forced you into the pub to inhale their smoke, it was your choice the same as taking salt and making sure its safe before you cross the road is your individual choice. The studies I quoted suggest that very few people get cancer from passive smoking if you can produce figures that disproves this please do.

    I don't frequent pubs very often but any time I have there's usually a group of regular old timers holding up the bar having their smoke(pre ban). If the risk was so high surly this group shouldn,t exist.




    Mr. Pudding: As I stated I am a non smoker/drinker so how can the motive for my argument be selfish. I have read your opinions and respect your right to express them but I have yet to be convinced. You are a self proclaimed reformed smoker and as every smoker knows this is the most vocal anti smoking group. I suggest that in this instance your personal intolerance for smokers is clouding your views on the actual issue in this debate about the smoking ban in pubs.




  • Muppet, do you even read other peoples posts?
    Originally posted by The Muppet

    The studies I quoted suggest that very few people get cancer from passive smoking if you can produce figures that disproves this please do.


    My apologises, I am a bit short on time and have been unable to find the links to the studies you have quoted. Could you please repost them?

    I am going to ask some questions and I would really like you to answer them.

    1) How does my comsumption of salt harm other people?
    2) Why is a persons right to smoke in a enclosed place of greater importance than another persons right to be in that place and not risk having their health harmed?
    3) Again. If you worked in a office and were surrounded by smokers and were told to work somewhere else do you think that would be fair?
    4) Do you care for any other human being?
    5) If yes to the previous question then: If they were dying a painful death due to someone elses vice would you be willing to say "yeah well I do love you and all and I know you are in a bit, sorry a lot of pain but hey. You gotta die sometime. Right?"?
    6)If you walked into a bar that I was in and I kicked your cnut in could I use the "who forced you to come into the bar arguement?

    Now instead of posting the same sh1t you have been posting since the start could you actually try to answer my questions? Some of them have been posted a couple of times. I just want honest answers.

    I really hate "there are so many ways for people to die we can't stop them all so why bother with any attitude" that is so fcuking stupid. Here is my last question. How can anyone with even a portion of a brain question a law which may save lives simply because all the other cause of loss of live have not been outlawed yet? I mean seriously Muppet. Get your mother to read your posts before you hit submit.

    Can you put "I have answered your questions" or "I have not answered your questions" in the subject line of your next post please. That way I won't have to waste my time wading through the same sh1t again.

    Regards

    MrP




  • Originally posted by The Muppet
    To use your style of argument

    Hey Lets make salt illegal it kills people, lets stop people from going upstairs that;ll save another 50 or so a year, lets take all traffic off the roads that'll save hundreds of lives. Now see how silly your argument is.

    On the contrary Muppet, you're overlooking two critical points.
    1) Falling down stairs is an activity that rarely affects the health of a second party.
    2) Taking all the cars off the roads is simply not feasable.

    On the other hand:
    1) Smoking does infringe on other people's health.
    2) Making smokers go outside for a puff is perfectly feasable.

    THAT is the critical difference between your logic and Memnoch's. Banning smoking in the workplace (including pubs) is a convenient and feasable way to save the lives of people who shouldn't be affected by its harmful effects. Simple as that.


Advertisement