1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Are pubs boring now?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Clive, Jul 6, 2007.

  1. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    I had to go to London today, and when the sun came out I went to the James Street area. The smokers were having a wonderful time outside the Lamb and Flag: really enjoying themselve after their day in their fresh air offices (air conditioned) Their emission, however, were nothing to those emanating from the cars and taxis queuing along James Street to enter Oxford Street.

    Presumably the non-smokers were also enjoying their smoke free room inside, except for the Hand Wafters outside (with that peculiar facial grimace which always accompanies the Hand Wafting ) , unless, of course, they were actually upset by the far more dangerous exhaust fumes.


    Continuing into St Christopher's Place and Aldburgh Mews the outside enjoyment continued. Every single restaurant in this area had loads more tables outside, all dressed with ashtrays and happy souls.


    So, all in all, a lovely time for the smokers, outside enjoying the sunshine and company, and presumably the non-smokers enjoying their clean air inside.

    Pubs and restaurants in London's West End? Not boring at all!
  2. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member


    Did you read my post? I fail to see how quoting a list of people who either lived all of or the majority of their lives prior to the dangers of smoking being commonly accepted fact has any relevance when I was talking about "people who continue to smoke despite the irrefutable evidence of the harm it can cause"

    If I suggested that anyone who thought the world was flat was stupid would you quote a list of pre-Galileo thinkers to disprove the point?

    I'll see your "stupid, ill-informed, ignorant thing to say" and raise you fair few more.
  3. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Even so, I'm sure there are folk out there, that even you would agree have a 'brain', that still choose to smoke.

    Suggesting only people with 'not much brain' smoke is somewhat, erm, brainless. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
  4. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Choosing to use it on the other hand... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif\

    Sorry, sorry dont wanna get back into this old fish story... :D
  5. ian_g

    ian_g Well-Known Member

    Ahhhh.... I get it, because it wasn't 'dangerous' before, then they still had brains... silly me.
  6. ian_g

    ian_g Well-Known Member

    And in actual fact, your original quote read:

    It’s a no brainer, but then people who continue to smoke despite the irrefutable evidence of the harm it can cause can’t really be expected to have much of a brain anyway can they?

    Chopping off the ends of sentences doesn't help win debates.
  7. ian_g

    ian_g Well-Known Member

    Oh, and speaking of not reading, I did apologise for calling you stupid. However, I do find your statement a generalisation of smokers, due to ignorance.
  8. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

  9. ian_g

    ian_g Well-Known Member

    Nice one, Clive. To think, even though you're a retired Doctor and a very competent photographer, think what a super-human brain you may have had hadn't you smoked.

    The mind boggles.... time for a cigarette...
  10. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    I could have been Prime Minister or President of the USA by now, Ian.

    They seem to have super human brains.

    Don't they?
  11. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Struth, you're hard work!

    Rather than include the whole quote which you had previously quoted anyway I merely directed your attention to the fact that I was only referring to people who chose to ignore the irrefutable evidence. That evidence wasn't there in the past therefore depsite the fact that smoking was still dangerous you can't accuse histoical smokers of stupidity because to their best knowledge smoking did no harm. Back in the here and now all the evidence is there. If you choose to ignore it then that can't be classed as anything other than a stupid decision.
  12. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Why is it 'stupid'? :D
  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Putting aside the hyperbole for a moment, I think it's probably fair to say that choosing to smoke when you know the dangers isn't that intelligent a choice. It certainly doesn't mean that the person concerned is brainless, a bad person or anything else, just that they've made one particular choice that's not particularly rational. And we all do that, all the time.

    Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not anti-smoker, I'm anti-smoking. I think it's harmful, disgusting, expensive, anti-social, and a little bit bizarre, if you think about the actual process. If I could wave a magic wand and rid the world of all traces of it, I would (and a lot of other things as well, but this argument is about smoking, not drinking, cars or anything else). It can't be done, though, so what's left is to manage the situation. Now we can argue about the evidence 'til the cows come home, but there are some absolute facts as I see it: one, smoking is harmful to the smoker. Two, the choice of whether to smoke or not is (initially at least) in the hands of the smoker. Three, passive smoking is at best unpleasant for many people, often causes a physical reaction - stinging eyes and feelings of nausea, for example - and is a health hazard at the very least for asthmatics etc - even without going into the long-term health effects, which I personally believe have been clearly enough proved but am prepared to accept for the purposes of this argument are debatable. Four, until the ban, it was not always possible to avoid passive smoking whilst going about normal life, and trying to do so often blocked off choices to the non-smoker - many otherwise excellent (or only available) establishments were simply too smokey. Five, the ban doesn't stop a smoker going anywhere. If it did, I would oppose it - instead, it gives both smoker and non-smoker equal rights for the first time, and as such is in my view an increase in civil liberties - the right to go to any enclosed public space without hindrance. What activities you can do there have long been limited by laws; this is simply another that restricts what some can do for the benefit of others (and arguably of all, if you consider the potential health and wealth benefits of giving up or reducing smoking, but I certainly wouldn't push that argument).

    So as I say, I'm not against smokers - I actually feel rather sorry for them, and that's despite the behaviour of so many (but not all) over the years who have ridden roughshod over my right not to breathe in their smoke, and never once appear to have felt sorry for the non-smokers. I do find the attitude of some of them incomprehensible - that their right to breathe smoke over me should take precedence over my right not to have smoke breathed over me. Had "smoking establishments" been a practical option, I would've been quite happy with that to keep smokers happy - however, not only is it (to me) an unacceptable form of social apartheid, preventing socialising between smokers and non-smokers, it also simply wouldn't work, compensation culture being what it is. And ultimately, that's the real reason for the ban. Not that it makes life vastly more pleasant for many of us, which I celebrate, but to save insurance companies lots of money. Right result, wrong reason.
  14. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    Smokers do die earlier. Fact. Some might even choose not to be incarcerated on their plastic covered chairs in some nursing home wondering if it's Thursday or Breakfast Time and go earlier, but active. To die living rather than live dying. Very controversial I know.

    But it is time that our politicains thought to give smokers higher pensions because they don't live so long, draining resources.

    And don't talk about the costs to the NHS of treating smoking related diseases. That costs the NHS £1.5 billion a year. Taxes raised from smoking £8.5 billion. And that's without the added pension bonus to the nation.

  15. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Simply because accepting such high risks for such a small gain makes no sense. It's not like an athlete choosing to ignore the risks to health by using performance enhancing drugs becuase the potntial gin for them is large (and at the top level, huge). Any 'gain' from smoking i.e. personal satisfaction is short term and diminishing.
  16. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't disagree with a word there, Nick. I have made it clear early in this thread that I have absolutely no problem with banning smoking indoors. But when the anti-smokng brigade started to talk about smoking outside I reacted, when there are high levels of toxic substances in far greater concentration than cigarette or pipe smoke. That these very people could be responsible for many of those emissions added a touch of irony.
  17. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Indeed, Clive. Thought it about time to take my own devil's advocate hat off and record my true feelings! :D

    As regards smoking outside, well I can't say I like it, but it's perfectly reasonable and I've no objection to it. Particularly given the terrible weather we've had this year! :D
  18. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member


    But those who suggest that people who smoke have questionable brainpower; well, would they apply equally to those who eat saturated fats, drink alcohol, drive motor cars, eat anything with refined sugar in it, eat processed food, eat take-aways, ever exceed the speed limit, dodge speed cameras..........................

    Well, I could go on and on. Perhaps we need a totalitarian state where freedom to choose anything is prohibited.
  19. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    The very point I was trying to make at the beginning of my tract. Yes, it's a silly choice, but we all make silly choices all the time.
  20. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Are the risk that high? Of all the people who smoke, what percentage die (before their 'time') from smoking related illness? What percentage of people who do not smoke die of cancer (the passive smoking issue aside)?

    And what can any of us know of what someone else gains from smoking, how are we to know their psychological make-up, or need to smoke, whether it's merely habit, or some greater 'desire'.

    Whilst you might consider their decision on this issue unsound, it doesn't necessarily make them any more (or less) stupid than the next person.

Share This Page