Steam Packet Smoking Ban

[manxman2]

fact is if you did smoke on deck when in transit what could anyone do about it .. tell em to go phuck themselves and what could they do .. nothing thats what..

 

and how anyone can think theres any passive smoke going in their lungs on a moving ship and the wind created is delusional..

[Stavros]

Ban you from using their services so that you can't travel by boat in the future?

[manxman2]

maybe now theres so much security about travelling .. still its cutting their own noses off financially..

 

i would rather fly and hire transport anyway .. cant remember last time i used a stinking spew ridden boat anyway.

[John]

fact is if you did smoke on deck when in transit what could anyone do about it .. tell em to go phuck themselves and what could they do .. nothing thats what..

 

and how anyone can think theres any passive smoke going in their lungs on a moving ship and the wind created is delusional..

 

 

Its more about when you are getting ready to disembark.

 

But having to stand down wind and get a face full off smoke and ash etc, its not the nicest experience.

 

If I was to sit next to you and let rip, would you not be a little annoyed??

[manxman2]

bollocks i said moving boat john.

 

20 odd mile per hour .. you aint getting any smoke in that wind .. same as if you let rip its not like in a car where it can mature .. anyway first thing you do is open a window to let air circulate .. theres a goodly breeze on the deck of a manx boat its disturbing alot of air .. passive smoke is a phuking joke .. best thing when in a hole is to stop digging councillor..

[Stavros]

.. cant remember last time i used a stinking spew ridden boat anyway.

That's quite a good point. How many of the people defending the right of smokers to be able to smoke on the open deck of the ship actually travel on the boat. Regularly or otherwise?

[Albert Tatlock]

At the end off the day if IOMSP want to ban smoking on their fast craft that is their perogative, me being an anti-smoker is my perogative.

 

I just understand the risks associated with smoking, my personal choice is to not smoke, I just do not like having my personal liberties affected when someone else chooses to the make me inhale their smoke.

There is a major difference between a non-smoker and an anti-smoker.

 

The typical non smoker may express the wish to not be around smoke, wonder why someone would take up smoking, and may like bans so that he can go to pub/restaurants without being subjected to other people's smoke. However, the average non-smoker doesn't necessarily appreciate the fact that the government has imposed a ban on ALL premises, business owners, and even private clubs, and removed the liberties of many who do wish to smoke, albeit away from non smoker.

 

The anti-smoker is out to end smoking, is selfish and intolerant, because he feels he should be able to dictate to others how to live their lives or run their business, has little regard if that is at the expense of their civil liberties and will push for anything that impacts smokers - even if there is no risk to himself involved.

 

The one thing smokers, non-smokers and anti-smokers do have in common, is understanding the risks associated with smoking, although the perception of the level of that exposure/risk varies across the three groups - from anywhere from dismissal, through to realistic and paranoia.

[John]

At the end off the day if IOMSP want to ban smoking on their fast craft that is their perogative, me being an anti-smoker is my perogative.

 

I just understand the risks associated with smoking, my personal choice is to not smoke, I just do not like having my personal liberties affected when someone else chooses to the make me inhale their smoke.

There is a major difference between a non-smoker and an anti-smoker.

 

The typical non smoker may express the wish to not be around smoke, wonder why someone would take up smoking, and may like bans so that he can go to pub/restaurants without being subjected to other people's smoke. However, the average non-smoker doesn't necessarily appreciate the fact that the government has imposed a ban on ALL premises, business owners, and even private clubs, and removed the liberties of many who do wish to smoke, albeit away from non smoker.

 

The anti-smoker is out to end smoking, is selfish and intolerant, because he feels he should be able to dictate to others how to live their lives or run their business, has little regard if that is at the expense of their civil liberties and will push for anything that impacts smokers - even if there is no risk to himself involved.

 

The one thing smokers, non-smokers and anti-smokers do have in common, is understanding the risks associated with smoking, although the perception of the level of that exposure/risk varies across the three groups - from anywhere from dismissal, through to realistic and paranoia.

 

Then i shall call myself a non smoker fron now on Albert, If you wish to smoke in your own home or anywhere that it does not affect the health or enjoyment off others then yes that is your right, Its also my right to ask smokers to not smoke in the close vacinity of myself, where it affects my own health or enjoyment.

 

I am far from advocating a total ban on smoking.

[Stavros]

However, the average non-smoker doesn't necessarily appreciate the fact that the government has imposed a ban on ALL premises, business owners, and even private clubs, and removed the liberties of many who do wish to smoke, albeit away from non smoker.

 

In your opinion.

 

My opinion, even as a smoker was that this was a good move. I could still smoke in my own home or car and if I wanted a cigarette at any other time then I only needed to go outside.

 

I think smokers are getting too defensive of where they can or cannot smoke. This situation involves a privately owned boat which sails for a period which should be roughly 2 hours or so. The owners do not want smoking on their boats for whatever reason. That is their right and saying otherwise would be an infingement of their rights. Smokers rights would be infringed if they were prevented from smoking in places that were not enclosed public spaces.

 

As soon as a ban on smoking is mentioned, every smoker leaps to the defense of their right to smoke without realy considering the rights of other people. I don't come to your business and demand that I should have the right to take a huge shit in the middle of the room. Don't assume that you have the right to smoke, drop cigarette butts or take a huge shit on someone elses place of business either.

[Albert Tatlock]

Well backing/approving a ban on an open air deck, especially when the boat is travelling at 40mph, is anti-smoking IMO. There is plenty of room on both fast craft to allow open air smoking e.g. port side or top deck etc.

 

Far more sensible would have been to police the entrances and exits on those fast craft where some people do stand and smoke to the annoyance of some - even to the annoyance of some smokers.

[Jimcalagon]

In your opinion.

 

My opinion, even as a smoker was that this was a good move. I could still smoke in my own home or car and if I wanted a cigarette at any other time then I only needed to go outside.

 

I think smokers are getting too defensive of where they can or cannot smoke. This situation involves a privately owned boat which sails for a period which should be roughly 2 hours or so. The owners do not want smoking on their boats for whatever reason. That is their right and saying otherwise would be an infingement of their rights. Smokers rights would be infringed if they were prevented from smoking in places that were not enclosed public spaces.

 

As soon as a ban on smoking is mentioned, every smoker leaps to the defense of their right to smoke without realy considering the rights of other people. I don't come to your business and demand that I should have the right to take a huge shit in the middle of the room. Don't assume that you have the right to smoke, drop ciggarette butts or take a huge shit on someone elses place of business either.

 

 

That sums up the position in a nutshell.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think smokers are getting too defensive of where they can or cannot smoke. This situation involves a privately owned boat which sails for a period which should be roughly 2 hours or so. The owners do not want smoking on their boats for whatever reason. That is their right and saying otherwise would be an infingement of their rights. Smokers rights would be infringed if they were prevented from smoking in places that were not enclosed public spaces.

 

As soon as a ban on smoking is mentioned, every smoker leaps to the defense of their right to smoke without realy considering the rights of other people. I don't come to your business and demand that I should have the right to take a huge shit in the middle of the room. Don't assume that you have the right to smoke, drop ciggarette butts or take a huge shit on someone elses place of business either.

Oh come on...everyone going to a pub/restaurant has the right to use the toilet and leave a huge jobby if they so wish.

 

Businesses should cater for their customers, and be allowed to cater for their customers, not act intolerantly or treat one group as second class citizens (treat as children even). And it's not ALL boats.

 

And you're damn right people leap to defend their rights, we all have a right to. And don't blame the cigarette butts you see on all smokers, most are responsible and use the bins etc. provided.

 

If you like being treated like that, then that's up to you. If so, I suspect you also like to have your botty smacked by the missus at weekends huh?

[Albert Tatlock]

In your opinion.

 

My opinion, even as a smoker was that this was a good move. I could still smoke in my own home or car and if I wanted a cigarette at any other time then I only needed to go outside.

 

I think smokers are getting too defensive of where they can or cannot smoke. This situation involves a privately owned boat which sails for a period which should be roughly 2 hours or so. The owners do not want smoking on their boats for whatever reason. That is their right and saying otherwise would be an infingement of their rights. Smokers rights would be infringed if they were prevented from smoking in places that were not enclosed public spaces.

 

As soon as a ban on smoking is mentioned, every smoker leaps to the defense of their right to smoke without realy considering the rights of other people. I don't come to your business and demand that I should have the right to take a huge shit in the middle of the room. Don't assume that you have the right to smoke, drop ciggarette butts or take a huge shit on someone elses place of business either.

 

 

That sums up the position in a nutshell.

No - that's what your typical anti-smoker hides behind and uses as a justification - without having to say 'Hurray for that! I'm a fascist, selfish, intolerant taker of rights, even when it doesn't really affect me'.

 

The same logic was used in the 30s to ban jews from shops.

[John]

Albert your moving away again from the rights of the non smoker, you seem to forget they have rights as well to not have to inhale your smoke, its that simple.

 

Your act damages others health.

 

There are an awfull lot of cigarette buts lying around outside every establishment for it to be a minority.

[Stavros]

Businesses should cater for their customers, and be allowed to cater for their customers, not act intolerantly or treat one group as second class citizens (treat as children even). And it's not ALL boats.

 

Single and narrow-minded half arsed argument which again is soley directed at only smokers. "not act intolerantly or treat one group as second class citizens" treating smokers as second class citizens or just telling non-smokers to put up with other people being inconsiderate to their preferences. Perhaps you should look at your own prejudices.