A culture of intolerance

One of the reasons that I'm concerned about the bans on smoking in public places, such as the one passed into law in Bermuda yesterday, is that they are fostering a culture of intolerance. It's become socially acceptable to harass smokers, even in situations where their habit harms no-one but themselves.

Exhibit A: earlier this month, the World Health Organisation announced that they will no longer hire smokers. They believe that it would be hypocritical to do so given their position as leaders in the global fight against smoking. Never mind that not everyone who works there is involved in that fight, or that those would-be employees might only be occasional smokers, or trying to quit.

Exhibit B: A surgeon in the UK has refused to treat a smoker for narrowed arteries in his legs until he quits. The surgeon won't even see the man and has only communicated with him by letter. Never mind that, as a taxpayer, the smoker has paid his contributions to the National Health Service, or that his smoking may not even be the cause of his condition.

I found it interesting that in the debate that took place in Bermuda's Senate yesterday, many of the arguments focused on the harm caused by smoking, not the harm caused by second-hand smoke. Carol Anne Bassett talked of the "mind-boggling loss to families" caused by smoking-related illness (presumably talking about deaths caused by smoking, not second-hand smoke). Kim Swan passed around a picture of a diseased lung (presumably that of a smoker, not a second-hand smoker). Space at the Senate table must have been tight with all the straw men there too.

Is this ban about persuading smokers to quit or protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke? If the former, the ban's proponents had better hope that the reaction of Lt. Col. David Burch, the only smoker in the Senate, isn't typical. "[The legislation] won't do much to help me quit," he said. If the latter, why were the Senators apparently not discussing how second-hand smoke has impacted health in Bermuda? Is there any quantitative evidence of of the scope of the problem here? Did anyone question the need for a mandatory Island-wide ban when many of the Island's restaurants have already voluntarily introduced their own?

"I want every person who sees Minister Burch smoking to harass him for it," said Larry Mussenden. His comment may have been light-hearted, but it was telling. The culture of intolerance has spread to Bermuda too.

Comments

[Tiger Bay on 22.12.05 at 14:25]

Was this long blog entry just an excude to use "Minister Burch" and "Culture of Intolerance" in the same sentence?

[SmokingGun on 22.12.05 at 14:49]

As in Oxy-Moron? Well if the Moron keeps it up he'll probably be on Oxygen so I guess it works.

Actually the call to ban smoking in public spaces is fine with me. However if they follow through with the additional banning of vending machines etc. it would be just ridiculous.

With the "We know what's good for you" mentality they obviously forgot that we have people who make a living from selling cigarettes and tobacco to "willing" customers.

I'm not in the business and do not invest in companies involved with tobacco but as long as it's not an illegal substance I feel those that are employed in that industry deserve the right to do business freely.

[TJL on 22.12.05 at 14:57]

Burchie's a smoker? Maybe he's not so bad after all...

[Yet Another Limey on 22.12.05 at 15:14]

This is clearly part of the government’s fundamental religious conspiracy.

First they remove the gambling machines
Then they remove the cigarette machines

Before you know it all vices and machines will have been removed.

Then we’ll be the first independent Amish nation.

Heed my words, start shopping for a horse and carriage now.
i

[silencedogood on 22.12.05 at 15:21]

I've smoked a cigarette or cigar in my life, but never on a regular basis. I'm not a smoker. I think it is a disgusting habit. I'm also glad to see it banned from enclosed public spaces for health reasons...

BUT, the actions listed above are facist. Particularly a doctor refusing to treat a patient. They should have his license--will ne next refuse to treat an overweight patient because they refused to diet? Or what about refusing to treat a diabetic with a sweet tooth? Or someone with the flu who has bad hygiene or who doesn't wear warm clothing in winter?

What's funny is that the same people who want to ban smoking want probably want to legalize drugs, or they support not hiring smokers but would balk at discrimination against people based on religion. All choices. Rank hypocrisy.

[J Galt on 22.12.05 at 15:34]

“Rights can be suspended..."

[novote on 22.12.05 at 15:55]

Personally, I'm all for a ban on smoking in public places.

However, this is to protect people that choose not to smoke, rather than those adults that elect to do it.

If the House was spending time debating the merits of smoking by smokers, then they're wasting their time.

There really is little to debate: smoking is bad for you. This is for all intent and purpose medical fact.

As for the smoker bashing, it's out of order. If adults choose to smoke in an environment that doesn't impact others, why should anybody else care.

Certainly the arguments about the social costs of smoking to the community at large are no stronger than those associated with people that drink too much, eat too much or undertake other high risk activities.

Come on. Do we really want a community of totally risk averse puritan monks (or nuns)? When would people have any fun!

[Full Fullish on 22.12.05 at 16:19]

Hey, I'm all for the ban....while I agree that people do have rights, those rights do not outweigh mine. As a non smoker, my health should not be endangered by second hand smoke, nor should I have to suffer through someone else's habit without choice.

Exhibit A: The WHO is wrong as they are singling out a group of people in their hiring practices. In almost any modern thinking country this is against the law as it infringes on human rights.

Exhibit B: The surgeon is wrong. Aside from going against medical ethics, he should treat each patient equally. His job is to heal, not to teach a lesson. For instance, if said surgeon told me that rollerblading is bad for my health, yet I go out and do it and break my leg, does said surgeon get to refuse operating on me? I'll beat him with my own broken leg if he does....

It may be a fine line between human rights and a culture of intolerance, but I feel there is a definable line there. Smokers are free to smoke, just not around me in an enclosed environment. Any time someone who chooses to exercise their rights while impeding someone else's is wrong however.

[bda youth on 22.12.05 at 16:20]

i think its funny that its sociably acceptable to harass a smoker about their habit, but not be able to do the same to an overweight person asking for a second helping. to me, bars and smoking go hand and hand. i think it should be the choice of the establishment because for places like docksiders and robin hood, primarily sports bars, practically all the patrons smoke! why would they want to deny some of their regulars and best customers the right to enjoy themselves in a place that they've proven loyal to and grown to love? this law is sooo ridiculous.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.12.05 at 16:33]

"The WHO is wrong as they are singling out a group of people in their hiring practices"

But the ban is ok for singling out a group of people in their banning practices?

"Any time someone who chooses to exercise their rights while impeding someone else's is wrong however."

Doesn't this go both ways?

Gah... I've been over this and over this.
I'm done. Sorry... I'll stop.

The ban is wrong. Unfair. Heavy-handed. Bad.

[Full Fullish on 22.12.05 at 17:01]

The ban is not stopping people from coming into the establishments, nor stopping people from being hired, nor stopping people from going anywhere. It's simply saying that performing an act is unacceptable within these walls, however if you want to do such act, you can take it outside. You can't do a lot of things in a bar, such as have sex, brawling, peeing on the floors, to name a few. If you want to do these things, you are free to do so in an appropriate place, and now the same for smoking. No argument here.

Of course impeding someone's rights goes both ways, however my comment above adresses this.

For years all of us Non Smokers have had to put up with the filth that you smokers exhale, I think turn-about is fair play. Take a good strong whiff of fresh air! ;)

[Raptor on 22.12.05 at 17:11]

Who finds it socially acceptable to harass smokers, aside from Larry Mussenden? Is it really widespread? I don’t blame you for being upset about that. It’s uncalled for if they’re not inflicting their smoking on others.

I don’t have a problem with WHO deciding not to hire smokers. It’s well known that U.S. cigarette manufacturers long ago turned their marketing sites onto other cultures (third world), as the U.S. population and medical establishment was becoming more aware of the dangers and costs of smoking. So they knowingly went after a young audience, giving away free samples, etc., knowing that smoking is very harmful to one’s health, and knowing it is highly addictive. WHO, unsurprisingly, says they’re making it known how they feel about smoking. Not a bad idea. Their middle name is “Health,” after all.

It’s reprehensible for the UK surgeon to refuse to treat someone for a circulatory problem because that person smokes. No argument.

Very often people (e.g. Bermuda Senate yesterday) refer to “smoking” in blanket terms, and would include second-hand smoke. Don’t know; I wasn’t there.

I can appreciate that people have different points of view about the smoking ban. Nicolette wrote recently about the “rights of smokers and the rights of those who own entertainment establishments.” She wants the bars, pubs, and nightclubs left alone. My problem with what she wrote is that she goes on to describe non-smokers as “whiny-ass” and “self-righteous.” Name-calling really is the province of weak argument. Too bad her humour sags too. As far as the “government dropping down, New York-style” goes, we should be so lucky as to live in such a free, vital environment as NYC!

She is absolutely right about the incinerator and pollution-spewing vehicles on the roads. This is third-world stuff—that’s the only other place I’ve seen this level of pollution. Why wouldn’t everyone want a better quality of life—basic clean air?

Like SmokingGun, the smoking ban is fine with me. However, banning vending machines is not ridiculous. That was done to curb underage access to cigarettes, and that move has proven to be very effective. It’s why you have to buy cigarettes from someone behind a counter these days—to make it harder for kids to start.

Like novote, I’m all for a ban on smoking in public places. There’s no doubt about the high costs of people who drink too much and people who eat too much, but at least they’re not pouring booze down our throats and food down our oesophaguses. That’s not the case with smoke.

[SmokingGun on 22.12.05 at 17:36]

Raptor I'm all for not having vending machines in places that are accessible to under-age persons, but what about in places where they are not supposed to be in the first place, ie: bars etc.?

What I'm really talking about is just how extensive the ban could get. Ewart proposed banishing tobacco from Bermuda completely. If that ever came to be then it's bye bye to all tourists that may wish a cigarette or cigar on their vacation.

[Murmur on 22.12.05 at 17:44]

Smoking bans are perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. I don't like breathing second hand smoke and don't want my children breathing it either. Discrimination against smokers is therefore totally legitimate otherwise how could a ban be justified? It's not like smoking is a fundamental human right. It's just a privilege that has to be tolerated by all the people around the smoker who choose not to smoke. It wastes billions of dollars annually in health care costs and non-smokers have to pay more and more health insurance to cover the cost of repairing smokers' lungs, hearts and circulatory systems. There's nothing socially redeeming about it. So yeah, ban it. And go forth and harass until people stop smoking around you.

[SmokingGun on 22.12.05 at 18:03]

I went out to dinner last night and ate at the bar with some friends. A woman who had obviously been to a Christmas Party or two came in and ordered a plate of pasta with a glass of wine. Within 20 minutes she managed to vomit down the front of the bar and herself. She tried to be coy about it and pretend nothing happened by continuing to eat her meal and drinking the wine.

I think they should ban puking in public places as well......

[Adam on 22.12.05 at 18:31]

I recently read about a case that could be Exhibit C.
Smoking has been banned in all restaurants and bars in Alberta, Canada. It is exceptionally cold there so standing outside to have a smoke isn't a reasonable option. The owners of one bar decided to purchase a schoolbus and park it outside at all times, effectively circumventing the ban as smoking laws don't apply to private vehicles.
While it is wildly popular with the patrons, the government is trying to end the move. But nobody but smokers are in any way affected; staff can't go in the bus, and non-smokers have no reason to (beer is not served inside the bus).

[Martin on 22.12.05 at 18:31]

Silence...

BUT, the actions listed above are facist. Particularly a doctor refusing to treat a patient. They should have his license--will ne next refuse to treat an overweight patient because they refused to diet?

Well - in what be called an indirect way - doctors do that now, simply because the person has too much weight to allow for surgery.

By the way - it works the other way too. I am about 10 stone (wet through) and that seems to worry one or two of the surgeons I have been to.

[Cancundreaming on 22.12.05 at 18:41]

“What's funny is that the same people who want to ban smoking want probably want to legalize drugs, or they support not hiring smokers but would balk at discrimination against people based on religion. All choices. Rank hypocrisy.”

Posted by silencedogood on 22.12.05 at 15:21

Hypocrisy? I’m not sure, but you’re simplifying their position to make your point. I think very few people want to legalize illegal drugs. However, there are those that argue for the legalization of certain drugs. There are then those that argue for the decriminalization of certain drugs. These are important differences.

Where your argument also missteps is the implication that discrimination towards smokers is somehow equivalent to discrimination towards a person because of their religious beliefs. There have always been ‘greater’ goods and ‘greater’ rights. Both Rawls and J.S. Mill articulated this idea. Not all rights are created equally, nor should they be treated equally under the law. Most nation states recognizes the importance of religion, specifically the importance of ensuring that everyone has the ability to choose their own and not face discrimination because of their choice. So much so that many states have explicitly enshrined ‘freedom of religion’ in one of their most important legal and societal documents, their constitution. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to think that discrimination towards smokers is ok, but not towards a person’s religious choices.

Let’s also not forget that discrimination isn’t automatically a bad ‘thing’. Day cares not hiring sex offenders is surely discriminatory towards SO’s but I would argue its still a good discriminatory policy.

[Martin on 22.12.05 at 18:47]

Does anyone know what the definition is of "public places"?

Might be splitting hairs - but the devil is usually in the detail.

Does it mean someone can sit on their garden wall (popular here) and smoke, but cannot drop down from the wall onto the pavement and smoke?

Should be interesting to see how the courts interpret this legislation.

[Phil on 22.12.05 at 18:58]

Martin

In Bermuda the ban will apply to enclosed public places.

For a definition of "public places" see here.

[loki on 22.12.05 at 19:09]

Phil, the definition to which you refer only applies to the Human Rights Act. Different Acts define a 'public place' in different ways for the purposes of those Acts.

[Phil on 22.12.05 at 19:28]

My apologies. I stand corrected.

[Uncle Elvis on 22.12.05 at 19:30]

Lokes, you got a link to the one that applies here?

[loki on 22.12.05 at 19:34]

"Lokes, you got a link to the one that applies here?"

No, it'll be a while before this makes it online, especially as it's not actually law yet: the Senate may have passed it, but it hasn't been given the Royal Assent.

[david on 22.12.05 at 20:38]

Wow what a revelation. I never realised how many of your commenters thought they were doctors yet clearly had no idea. This doctor has every right. The smoker clearly has very bad peripheral vessel disease caused by the well known most high risk factor smoking. If you smoked to the point that you developed pain in your legs after walking several steps but continued to smoke and ignored such dramatic warning signs, picture what the doctor has to face. An operation to transplant "healthy" veins that supply your lungs into your legs so that your feet and lower legs get enought of a blood supply to support normal function is fraught with risk. Infection, anaethesia, heart failure, pneumonia, the list goes on. This operation is allso your last chance, you don't have many spare veins available. Now the doctor knows this (unlike most of your readers) but of faced with a long term smoker who ignores what his own body is telling him, he has to decide whether (a) this man will survive theis high risk operation and (b) has he learnt his lesson enough to stop smoking as this is his only chance. Remember George Best who continued to drink alcohol despite having a liver transplant (something we DO do under NHS) and see the grief he got. This surgeon faced with such a decision has every right to make the decision he made. A surgeon has every right to want to feel comfortable about doing a high risk procedure to a patient irrespective to what the patient wants with know prior knowledge/experience. Leave the guy alone. Its not simple smoker bashing, its commen sense. The NHS has finite resources, we can't deny that. Are we going to spend thousands of pounds on a procedure on someone who has no desire to change his lifestyle to protect his health (ever heard of responsibility) rather then spend that money on someone who does. Cost is one point, but someones disregard for their own health is another, if you don't care why should we?

[loki on 22.12.05 at 21:09]

Hello, Dave,

You're basically correct, in my book. The only troubling part in my opinion is the specialist referenced above, who not only refused to treat a smoker for narrowed arteries in the legs, but refused to even see him, despite the fact that smoking was not necessarily the cause of the man's condition. Does this not strike you as wrong? If the specialist had seen him and determined that his condition was likely due to smoking, that's one thing, but to assume that his problem was caused by smoking and refuse to see him on that basis doesn't seem right.

[Sergio on 22.12.05 at 21:13]

Thank you David.

I love it when someone shows up who actually knows what they are talking about.

I'm not a doctor, but I have heard about a similar incident before. The doctor does have the right to refuse this patient, for many reasons including the ones that David mentioned above. This also comes up when people are on a transplant list. If someone is at the top of the list for a new liver, they have to follow certain orders from the doctor, such as not drinking alcohol. If they don't, the doctor can refuse that patient and offer it to another candidate, who is willing to stop drinking alcohol so they can receive the live-saving gift of a kidney from a donor.

David says it best, it's common sense... not facism

[Martin on 22.12.05 at 22:05]

Thanks Phil.

[Bill Cook on 22.12.05 at 22:06]

Watching the interview on BBC with the foremost doctor on the subject he commented that failure rate with those getting transplants was only 5% if I have gotten it right.

It then becomes a very difficult decision to make,under those circumstances.

It does seem unfair that those who do not drink are not given first choice on the waiting list however,but I would not want to be the one making that call.

The doctor who is a leading authority could not explain why some relapsed back to alcohol while some did not.

[ben on 22.12.05 at 23:03]

Great debate folks.

BUT!!!

none of you have really seen first hand the effects of smoking....right???? because if you had, you would support the new legislation. Intolerance...yes. It's a rule that we need to have, proven by science to be extemely harmful, and deadly. It's like we need to stop at stop signs, because if we dont we'll get killed, or kill somebody.

Having been a smoker for more than half my life, i could well die of cancer, or suffer a miserable slow,messy and painful future of lung disease. I really wish i had never smoked.

I remember the people at the vets hospital in Halifax that used to come down to the snack room with the vending machines. Some would be having a smoke break while carrying around their colostomy bag, others would be smoking through the little plastic hole in their throat, and others would wheel in slowly and suck on what might have been their last pack of fags. It was sickening.

We need this legislation, almost as much as we need Renee's human right amendment.

[david on 23.12.05 at 07:03]

I agree that the Doctor should probably have seen him in the clinic to tell him about his decision. You have to appreciate its probably quite frustrating for him to see lots of people with his problem who wont stop smoking, so rather then waste an outpatient appointment, use it for someone who appreciates it. This man moaning about how he pays his taxes and so on is missing an important point. The decision is entirely in his hands, he stops smoking he'll get better and may even avoid an operation. He needs to listen to the advice, and if he thinks its bullying well he needs to look at why he is being bullyed

[Phil on 23.12.05 at 08:03]

Doctor Dave

"he stops smoking he'll get better"

That's a bit of a simplistic diagnosis, isn't it? Especially considering that you haven't examined him yourself.

[Bill Cook on 23.12.05 at 08:49]

Few things in life reveal the character and intellectual honesty of people as much as their opinions on the pros and cons of smoking.

Considering that smoking has killed more people than those lost in the last two wars in the same period of time, to date that is, and reading Bens post I am happy to be described as a Whiny Ass, who is totally opposed to all smoking in any place were there are people who do not want their air polluted by other selfish people.

If they want to smoke in their own homes thats fine with me, but they wont smoke in mine.

Somewhere I read how many hospital beds that could be vacated if no one smoked and the cost of our medical services and health insurance being dramatically reduced etc. and it was simply staggering.

The only people who should be supporting smokers in my opinion are those who make a living by selling tobacca.

[Longtime Lurker on 23.12.05 at 08:51]

Exhibits C, D, E... etc: In his youth, before he really understands the consequences of his actions, Child X's friends harass him relentlessly and the peer pressure eventually convinces him to smoke. The result is an addiction, a terrible habit that he regrets starting for the rest of his (shorter) life.

(No, I'm not Child X. But I know many Children X's.)

While I don't agree with the examples the Limey listed above, as they do seem to impede the smokers' abilities to function in society, I think that they are outliers.

I have no problem with a general culture of intolerance in which people "harass" smokers by reminding them that smoking is an unhealthy, disgusting habit, however. A "smoker" does not have an ethnicity that we need to respect, they have a bad habit that they'd be better off dropping. I've harassed family members over their smoking habits before; it's not because I'm a jerk who doesn't respect their point of view, it's because I love them and would prefer to have them around longer.

In the fight against smoking - and it IS something that we should be fighting - the "culture of intolerance" - ad campaigns and non-smokers reminding the smokers that their habit is unhealthy - is one of our weapons. Tough love, if you will. It works - smoking seems far less prevalent in the US than in Europe. (I'm also for a more caring approach, too - understanding that it is an addiction and helping in the treatment.)

[jake on 23.12.05 at 09:15]

Phil,

You seem to be the master at grasping at straws on this issue. It may indeed be obvious to Dave that if the guy stops smoking he will improve. On what basis do you question his medical judgment? None of us have examined him (and if you and I did, what would we see anyway?).

Equally, on what basis do you conclude that second hand smoke is safe? You offer less support for the contention that we are all ok (in Bermuda, which as I pointed out before, can hardly be a special test case for the effects of smoking) with second hand smoke than those who have banned it. Actually, you have offered no support at all for that contention.

I think you are way off on this one.

[Chris Broadhurst on 23.12.05 at 09:38]

I think the ban is a positive move for all non smokers - and maybe some smokers too.

There is an obvious danger in breathing second hand smoke. We don't need a study to show that.

You are breathing in smoke for God's sake!

[Chris Broadhurst on 23.12.05 at 09:39]

However, I question the sense in passing yet another law with a grace period. It effectively just delays it. What's the point?

[Full Fullish on 23.12.05 at 09:47]

Bill Cook - "The only people who should be supporting smokers in my opinion are those who make a living by selling tobacca."

Too right! Aside from the health aspect, look at the money being, quite literally, burned up in smoke(ing). A pack of cigs costs what $6, $7? I'll say $5 for my numbers, I know a lot of people who can smoke about a pack a day, now times that by 365 days in the year....$1,825 a year! Wow! All so you can then spend further money on the joys of cancer later on in life.....Crazy...

[Uncle Elvis on 23.12.05 at 09:48]

" ...its probably quite frustrating for him to see lots of people with his problem who wont stop smoking"

Um. Doesn't the Hippocratic Oath say "Do no harm"?

"Considering that smoking has killed more people than those lost in the last two wars in the same period of time, to date that is"

Um. You're going to have to expand on this, please. This sounds a bit like hyperbole. Which two wars?

Chris... you won. You can't even give us evil, murdering, irresponsible smokers a little grace period?
You can't give the bar owners a little time to adjust to this paradigm shift in how they're going to have to do business?

Regardless of your feelings on smoking, people, you have to admit, this IS going to affect how bars operate.

You guys won. Hope you're proud of yourselves.

[J Galt on 23.12.05 at 09:50]

Its not about smoking, its about one's right to his own life. The smoker exercises this right by chooseing to smoke. The non-smoker by not smoking.

Bill Cook says "If they want to smoke in their own homes thats fine with me, but they wont smoke in mine."

Bill has every right to decide who can enter his home and what they can or can not do there. But bill has no right to tell another property owner what they can or can not do on their property.

The Ban does just that it says Bill you cannot choose for yourself, we will force you, not to do as you want, but, to do as we say.

You can go to a stripbar, and see naked people. If seeing some T&A offends you then don't go into the bar, if smoking is not for you then don't go into a bar that allows smoking. It seems pretty simple to me.

Ask yourself what does the smoking ban do?

The answer it removes the property rights of the owner, and in doing so removes free choice for everyone.

I also feel that a doctor should be free to choose his patients, or to put it another way, I don't believe that we should be able to force a doctor to treat someone. Just as I don't believe that any individual should be allowed to force his will on another.

[Uncle Elvis on 23.12.05 at 09:55]

Galt, I REALLY don't want to get into an argument over this. Honestly. Because you know I agree with you on this one.

But the doctor thing.

If someone makes a promise... let's call it an "Oath"... to help people, are we, as society, forcing them?

Oh... and I just found out "First, do no harm..." ISN'T in the Oath, so.. my bad.

[Chris Broadhurst on 23.12.05 at 09:57]

Uncle Elvis:

You ain't nothin but a hound dog!

:-)

[Bill Cook on 23.12.05 at 11:15]

Do your own research Uncle and get back to us ASAP.

Galt you are a Wily Wanker !

What if I want to visit a T&A bar to view just that,which can be a very nice thing to do if the good taste and quality is there, and the smoke bothers my eyes (it does) so that I am unable to fully appreciate the glory of a delectable female form and ruins my experience ?

I have no problem if the bar/ club says WARNING we are a smoking bar and you have a choice of going to a non smoking bar club that seems fair as long as the T&A is there also.

Its only a problem if the bar/owner does not respect both parties ok ?

I share some of your views on the rights of the individual which are not always as easy to define as you seem to think in my opinion.

[Uncle Elvis on 23.12.05 at 11:22]

"I have no problem if the bar/ club says WARNING we are a smoking bar..."

No can do, any more. You guys won, so this point is moot.

I wasn't questioning the research, I was questioning the English. You weren't very clear, so I reiterate.
Which two wars? What do you mean, in the same period of time.

As for MY research, I've been over it time and again, but it is dismissed completely, so... what the hell do I know? I guess the fact that I smoke means that my opinion and research don't matter.

Neither do my rights, apparantly.

[J Galt on 23.12.05 at 11:42]

"I have no problem if the bar/ club says WARNING we are a smoking bar and you have a choice of going to a non smoking bar club..."

Then you agree the smoking ban is unjust?

[Chris Broadhurst on 23.12.05 at 11:51]

I'm beginning to understand you a bit better now Elvis. You honestly seem to think it should be your "right" to be able to light up and pollute the atmosphere to everyone else's discomfort.

[Somers on 23.12.05 at 11:59]

Just quit smoking.
For help, Google the following phase: "smokers lungs picture" Download image and apply as your desktop background & screensaver... get back to me in regards to the outcome.

[Full Fullish on 23.12.05 at 12:10]

Uncle Elvis, et all smokers, so would you feel better if the bars and other establisments had an area where you can smoke then?

[Bill Cook on 23.12.05 at 12:16]

Galt

No its not so easy as that.

The smoking ban is half just as it protects half and punishes the other half.

Galt do think one should have the right to commit suicide ?

[Yet Another Limey on 23.12.05 at 12:20]

Without the smell of the smoke we’ll be able to smell the other patrons in the bar!

Maybe Dale Butler can hand out deodorant and the Senate can ban the sale of garlic and excessively fizzy drinks.