Banning smoking in beer gardens

[mexico1970]

Well they mainly.serve sea food items and definitely not chilli and no, I've never seen the shit that comes out of their arses. Have you?

Now that surely is a topic for another thread.

 

[FlemishDuck]

In regards to economics and the concept of economic efficiency tobacco can often be used to question the concept of capitalist monetary efficiency. That is to say, the general concept of capitalism is more money equals more wealth, but that would then argue that "in order to waste resources lake farmland, labor, energy and capital goods towards the production of a good that makes people ill and likely will create added costs to healthcare" is net efficient and generating wealth to the tune of its market value. Hmmm ... that would be a special proposition. You would perhaps be right to think that the logical conclusion from this is that capitalists will legitimize that as efficient which brings them in more wealth even if it's of the back of society's best interests, which arguably it is.

To a degree, you could make similar considerations about the marketing industry. Why waste resources to make people consume more, when we consume to unsustainable and troublesome levels? Thats another discussion yes, but the meeting point is there where advertisement of tobacco products have been banned in many country's, which was a logical move in its own that caused some debate but which was again a logical move. At least ... it regarded foremost the predatory likeness of capitalism upon making this market grow for what were mainly their selfish "asocial" gains, with things like targeting young people being a of that kind of obviously premeditated quasi villainous behavior from those industries leaders.

Alas, governments are nevertheless often hypocrite about how to manage the matter in the moral side when they start to get hooked on consumption tax income from tobacco, which doesn't necessarily brings us further in how we might want to actually manage this "industry" going forward. My ideal would be that the sale of tobacco would be banned but not the consumption of it, aka you can still smoke but you have to grow your own stuff. When there is a corporate element to tobacco production it invariably tries to meddle in politics or find methods of dubious morality to expand its market which is not to the interest of society. Its better that "noone could make his fortune from it", with that difference that you wouldnt pay taxes either for what you grow at home.

This might not seem relevant to pubs and their beer gardens at first, but it outlines some of the economic principles in which i review the tobacco industry. Your economy will be more efficient withought the industry, more wealth will be generated if you do away with it (irrespective that it might cost jobs at first) as you can re-divert the previous invested resources to something useful.

So where it comes to your freedom in this policy, it becomes one of "your freedom ends where one of the other begins". Your free to grow some tobacco for yourself and smoke it especially in your own home but everyone outside that is free to set rules regarding its consumption for where they have the right to do so.

 

[stonerblue]

Well they mainly.serve sea food items and definitely not chilli and no, I've never seen the shit that comes out of their arses. Have you?

That's even worse, prawns and whatnot stink twice as bad.
Luckily i haven't seen any pictures of the insides of red meat or seafood eaters but i'm sure some self righteous busy vegan will post summat shortly..

 

[stonerblue]

Can’t you disgusting smelly cunts just croak it already.

On me way..

 

[Rory Bluelow]

As a lifelong non smoker, I despise cigarettes (they killed my mum at just 54). I welcomed the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants with open arms. No longer having to go home with clothes and hair reeking of the stuff. Plus the dangers of passive smoking. (I lost a mate from schooldays who also died of lung cancer, and had never had a cig in his life, but grew up above his parents pub in the 60's/70's ...)

However, I think banning it outside is wrong. At best possibly have smoke free zones. There is a pub near us, and one side of the beer garden is already smoke free, and it works well generally.

No one should have to breathe someone’s second hand smoke if they don’t want to - but I’m disturbed by a growing trend to regulate and control the minutiae of other people’s lives. As someone who believes in “live and let live” I find this trend chilling and ultimately dangerous. Surely the answer is to allow the dwindling number of smokers to have an area or arrangement that insulates them and their bad habit from everyone else.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Quite like this thread, its as mental as the match thread.

FFS Lowtower.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

In regards to economics and the concept of economic efficiency tobacco can often be used to question the concept of capitalist monetary efficiency. That is to say, the general concept of capitalism is more money equals more wealth, but that would then argue that "in order to waste resources lake farmland, labor, energy and capital goods towards the production of a good that makes people ill and likely will create added costs to healthcare" is net efficient and generating wealth to the tune of its market value. Hmmm ... that would be a special proposition. You would perhaps be right to think that the logical conclusion from this is that capitalists will legitimize that as efficient which brings them in more wealth even if it's of the back of society's best interests, which arguably it is.

To a degree, you could make similar considerations about the marketing industry. Why waste resources to make people consume more, when we consume to unsustainable and troublesome levels? Thats another discussion yes, but the meeting point is there where advertisement of tobacco products have been banned in many country's, which was a logical move in its own that caused some debate but which was again a logical move. At least ... it regarded foremost the predatory likeness of capitalism upon making this market grow for what were mainly their selfish "asocial" gains, with things like targeting young people being a of that kind of obviously premeditated quasi villainous behavior from those industries leaders.

Alas, governments are nevertheless often hypocrite about how to manage the matter in the moral side when they start to get hooked on consumption tax income from tobacco, which doesn't necessarily brings us further in how we might want to actually manage this "industry" going forward. My ideal would be that the sale of tobacco would be banned but not the consumption of it, aka you can still smoke but you have to grow your own stuff. When there is a corporate element to tobacco production it invariably tries to meddle in politics or find methods of dubious morality to expand its market which is not to the interest of society. Its better that "noone could make his fortune from it", with that difference that you wouldnt pay taxes either for what you grow at home.

This might not seem relevant to pubs and their beer gardens at first, but it outlines some of the economic principles in which i review the tobacco industry. Your economy will be more efficient withought the industry, more wealth will be generated if you do away with it (irrespective that it might cost jobs at first) as you can re-divert the previous invested resources to something useful.

So where it comes to your freedom in this policy, it becomes one of "your freedom ends where one of the other begins". Your free to grow some tobacco for yourself and smoke it especially in your own home but everyone outside that is free to set rules regarding its consumption for where they have the right to do so.

I can see a thriving black market burgeoning from someone growing more than they can consume themselves and cashing in on it.

Did they not try something similar with prohibition in America. That worked out well didn’t it.

 

[Coatigan]

No one should have to breathe someone’s second hand smoke if they don’t want to - but I’m disturbed by a growing trend to regulate and control the minutiae of other people’s lives. As someone who believes in “live and let live” I find this trend chilling and ultimately dangerous. Surely the answer is to allow the dwindling number of smokers to have an area or arrangement that insulates them and their bad habit from everyone else.

The two are not mutually exclusive though. If bars or restaurants can provide a dedicated smoking area outside, it doesn't need to affect the rest of the beer garden. If they can't, it makes sense to ban it there altogether.

 

[mexico1970]

No one should have to breathe someone’s second hand smoke if they don’t want to - but I’m disturbed by a growing trend to regulate and control the minutiae of other people’s lives. As someone who believes in “live and let live” I find this trend chilling and ultimately dangerous. Surely the answer is to allow the dwindling number of smokers to have an area or arrangement that insulates them and their bad habit from everyone else.

Strict smoking areas, on top of that you have to have the equivalent non smoking area, people with children shouldn't be allowed in the smoking areas, it's not a choice they should have.

You get the idea that if we did have a moment of common sense and open pubs specifically for smokers and vapers there would be an army of professional coughers and puffers who'd go in it just to complain.

 

[hilts]

In regards to economics and the concept of economic efficiency tobacco can often be used to question the concept of capitalist monetary efficiency. That is to say, the general concept of capitalism is more money equals more wealth, but that would then argue that "in order to waste resources lake farmland, labor, energy and capital goods towards the production of a good that makes people ill and likely will create added costs to healthcare" is net efficient and generating wealth to the tune of its market value. Hmmm ... that would be a special proposition. You would perhaps be right to think that the logical conclusion from this is that capitalists will legitimize that as efficient which brings them in more wealth even if it's of the back of society's best interests, which arguably it is.

To a degree, you could make similar considerations about the marketing industry. Why waste resources to make people consume more, when we consume to unsustainable and troublesome levels? Thats another discussion yes, but the meeting point is there where advertisement of tobacco products have been banned in many country's, which was a logical move in its own that caused some debate but which was again a logical move. At least ... it regarded foremost the predatory likeness of capitalism upon making this market grow for what were mainly their selfish "asocial" gains, with things like targeting young people being a of that kind of obviously premeditated quasi villainous behavior from those industries leaders.

Alas, governments are nevertheless often hypocrite about how to manage the matter in the moral side when they start to get hooked on consumption tax income from tobacco, which doesn't necessarily brings us further in how we might want to actually manage this "industry" going forward. My ideal would be that the sale of tobacco would be banned but not the consumption of it, aka you can still smoke but you have to grow your own stuff. When there is a corporate element to tobacco production it invariably tries to meddle in politics or find methods of dubious morality to expand its market which is not to the interest of society. Its better that "noone could make his fortune from it", with that difference that you wouldnt pay taxes either for what you grow at home.

This might not seem relevant to pubs and their beer gardens at first, but it outlines some of the economic principles in which i review the tobacco industry. Your economy will be more efficient withought the industry, more wealth will be generated if you do away with it (irrespective that it might cost jobs at first) as you can re-divert the previous invested resources to something useful.

So where it comes to your freedom in this policy, it becomes one of "your freedom ends where one of the other begins". Your free to grow some tobacco for yourself and smoke it especially in your own home but everyone outside that is free to set rules regarding its consumption for where they have the right to do so.

Yes yes we all get that but do you like the smell of Strawberries?