Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Are you quite sure then that others do not breathe in your smoke when you travel on the seacat and smoke at the back of the boat? What about the fumes coming from the f'kin engines!!! (yes I do smell the engine fumes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Are you quite sure then that others do not breathe in your smoke when you travel on the seacat and smoke at the back of the boat? What about the fumes coming from the f'kin engines!!! (yes I do smell the engine fumes) Well then this problem could be taken up with the Steam Packet, it might be impossible to stop engine fumes from reaching your nose, in which case passengers must weigh up the risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Its all besides the point Stav, could the government ban smoking because they own the road, or the pavement?.... Its outside where you're exposed to the elements with 5% of your body touching the steam packets "property".., its not an enclosed space like an aeroplane FFS, like I said it doesn't effect me but its the principal. How does someone smoking outside affect you or other passengers?..... I'm not saying that it does affect other passengers, that's not the issue. The reason they have imposed the ban on smoking could be because they've had problems with cigarette butts being dropped into drains, air vents or because people are stubbing their cigarettes out and causing damage to paint work which has to be repaired. The point is that they have a right to stop people from doing things on their property that they don't want people doing and they can do that for whatever reason. Perhaps they might introduce a ban on guide dogs being allowed on deck because they've found that they shit everywhere. All that is of course just an example of what could be done and it is not necessarily something which has been designed to piss off any smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Are you quite sure then that others do not breathe in your smoke when you travel on the seacat and smoke at the back of the boat? What about the fumes coming from the f'kin engines!!! (yes I do smell the engine fumes) Well then this problem could be taken up with the Steam Packet, it might be impossible to stop engine fumes from reaching your nose, in which case passengers must weigh up the risks. Correct, the risks being fumes from an engine (not a big deal) or risks from breathing possibly the equivalent of one puff of ciggie smoke, bearing in mind a smoker smokes tens of thousands of ciggies in a life time, the harm from a tenth of one is almost impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 IOMSP have every right to do what they please with their own property. If they choose to only let people in green tops on board, so be it. If they choose to ban smoking on fast craft, so be it. It their right. If you don't agree by all means express your opinion, just as i will happily express my joy at the decision, as non smoker. But please don't try and make out its a step toward some bloomin nanny state, as thats complete crap. You still have a choice to 1, Not use the boat 2, Use the Ben 3, Travel and moan all the way over and rush off at he other end to have a ciggy. 4, Fly and not be able to smoke any way 5, buy your own boat and do what the hell you want 6, Not bother to leave the IOM I speak from personal experience of getting the boat as a non smoker, I still remember the days off having to put up with smoking on buses, in shops, in the cinema, in restaurants etc. I also had to work in smoky enviroments, I needed the money, so had no choice. You are a smoker, you smoke for whatever reasons, that is your personal right, I am not going to advocate it being banned on the prom FFS. I just personally dont like it in my close proximity. Smoke to your lungs content in your own car, home etc etc. Though the one downside to no smoking in the pub is you can smell farts far too easilly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Its all besides the point Stav, could the government ban smoking because they own the road, or the pavement?.... Its outside where you're exposed to the elements with 5% of your body touching the steam packets "property".., its not an enclosed space like an aeroplane FFS, like I said it doesn't effect me but its the principal. How does someone smoking outside affect you or other passengers?..... I'm not saying that it does affect other passengers, that's not the issue. The reason they have imposed the ban on smoking could be because they've had problems with cigarette butts being dropped into drains, air vents or because people are stubbing their cigarettes out and causing damage to paint work which has to be repaired. The point is that they have a right to stop people from doing things on their property that they don't want people doing and they can do that for whatever reason. Perhaps they might introduce a ban on guide dogs being allowed on deck because they've found that they shit everywhere. That is of course just an example of what could be done and it is not necessarily something which has been designed to piss off any smokers. But if thats the case (about damages), then a warning should be placed up ie "your right to smoke will be washed away if damage to this vessel continues, please use ciggarette bins provided", its equally stupid as the ban itself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Correct, the risks being fumes from an engine (not a big deal) or risks from breathing possibly the equivalent of one puff of ciggie smoke, bearing in mind a smoker smokes tens of thousands of ciggies in a life time, the harm from a tenth of one is almost impossible. Actually, I never implied that the engine fumes were not that harmful, this isn't what I was talking about. The harm is quite possible! The harm is real. One puff of smoke will cause an extremely small amount of harm to a person, but there is damage. It might be a few cells killed or a tiny bit of tar in someone's lung. Now to someone who wants to be healthy or even just to someone who wants to have control over managing their own health breathing in other people's smoke, whether it is a puff or not, removes that ability. But it should not be the non-smoker who should accommodate the smoker by finding a place away from the smokers or by staying inside the boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 "your right to smoke will be washed away if damage to this vessel continues, please use ciggarette bins provided" That would be fine if you actually had a 'right' to smoke on someone elses property, which of course, you don't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 IOMSP have every right to do what they please with their own property. If they choose to only let people in green tops on board, so be it. If they choose to ban smoking on fast craft, so be it. It their right. Nobody is debating the right of the company to do this. Though I do think the issue of choice has been used a lot on this thread, which is surprising considering that the Island's people really have very little choice in how they travel to and from the Island. Though the one downside to no smoking in the pub is you can smell farts far too easilly. Tell me about it, the gay clubs are not the same with the stench of fart, BO, and bad cologne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 "your right to smoke will be washed away if damage to this vessel continues, please use ciggarette bins provided" That would be fine if you actually had a 'right' to smoke on someone elses property, which of course, you don't! Ah fuck it, its all tit for tat, I can see both sides of the coin. In my personal opinion to ban smoking regardless of who owns the property in an open enviroment is totally pointless and unneeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 "B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee54 Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Is this what the Corpy Muppet wants http://www.flickr.com/photos/veganlibraria...794848/sizes/l/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 That's a correct but spurious argument though isn't it? Private companies can and do set all sorts rules or Terms & Conditions, tariffs - you name it, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss, disagree and even challenge those terms. In this case the SPC can a. Charge what they like b. Sail when they like c. to where they like d. provide whatever onboard service they like, of whatever quality they like, at whatever cost they like Ultimately, provided it is within the law, our only choice is to take it or leave it. But we've discussed all these issues on here. I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that it's a spurious argument. Ultimately, yes, it's a take it or leave it environment and if you don't like it then you have another free right and that is to use an alternative service. If all of the issues have been discussed, why are they still banging on about fucking windspeeds and smoke being blown in other people faces? They're not going to get the chance to find out as it's being banned anyway. Did you deliberately miss the point I was making? When I mentioned that all the issues have been discussed I meant that we've discussed pricing, routes, and the service of the Steam Packet, all of which is ultimately, their choice, but we still discuss them. So you going "...it's their choice...hahaha...it's their choice...hahaha...it's their choice...hahaha...it's their choice...hahaha...it's their choice...hahaha..." like a penny automaton in a seaside arcade is spurious. But carry on you seem to be enjoying yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 [. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I think smokers should be shot. There. I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.