A peeing section

[Mark Buckton 1]

I have stated my position on smoking here before but can't help passing o nthis gem from the BBC (a viewer's comment)

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. (In a state of confusion...)

Surely this cannot be rebuffed? (Nodding yes...)

[Jakusotsu 6,401]

...and still some people would be delighted.

[sumofan 6]

regardless of the unwanted images this brings on, it is true.

it would not be so bad if smoking and non smoking were physically separated rooms, but often it is just some tables that have ashtrays, and some don't.

as if the smoke would magically stop before drifting over my table.

if you feel you need to smoke, then at least have the decency not to exhale...

[Hashira 0]

while I agree with you in principle, I think that smokers are overly-picked on.

they are doing something that is legal, and does not really do that much damage to you (in terms of the amount of smoke they will force you to inhale while you are in the restaurant), so I don't think governments should legislate that all restaurants be non smoking (as my province has), rather that it should be up to the individual restaurant owners to decide what their customers want.

make cigarettes illegal, along with polluting cars, etc

[Fujisan 536]

while I agree with you in principle, I think that smokers are overly-picked on.

they are doing something that is legal, and does not really do that much damage to you (in terms of the amount of smoke they will force you to inhale while you are in the restaurant),

It may be legal but it shouldn't be and its not just the health issue in restaraunts,its the fact I wouldn't want the stench of smoke while I was trying to eat-No thanks!!!!!! (Eek...) (Applauding...) (Applauding...)

[Manekineko 200]

What Fujisan says - it's simply impolite to smoke while other people near you are enjoying their food - you mess with their taste buds and everything tastes of smoke. So restaurants should really be either non-smoking or smoking-only, for those few who can't survive a meal without lighting up.

I don't mind smokers. I mind inconsiderate smokers...

[Jakusotsu 6,401]

you know the story. three or four go out for a drink. only one is a smoker. do they go to the smoking or non-smoking place? in my experience it's always the whinging smoker who makes everyone go to a smoking pub.

Oh so true! We've been to London recently in a group of six and would have gotten a nice table in the no-smoking section, which happened to be the last one available. I still can't believe we gave in to the smokers' arrogance and went in search for another pub.

The food we got there offered little to be spoiled by smoke, though. You'd better be off eating a beef steak raw than giving it to an English excuse for a cook.

[Fujisan 536]

The food we got there offered little to be spoiled by smoke, though. You'd better be off eating a beef steak raw than giving it to an English excuse for a cook.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying the English cant cook? (In a state of confusion...)

I can cook- (Nodding yes...)

Ok I nearly burnt the house down last time and I even managed to blow up a microwave once before I finished up dropping the dinner on the kitchen floor but I CAN cook........ (Whistling...)

Edited October 29, 2005 by Fujisan

[Asojima 2,874]

The food we got there offered little to be spoiled by smoke, though. You'd better be off eating a beef steak raw than giving it to an English excuse for a cook.

When I lived in the state of Virginia, a restaurant opened with the claim that it offered the finest in English cookery. It might have lasted three months! (Sign of disapproval)

[Sakana 46]

as if the smoke would magically stop before drifting over my table.

maybe in France ? (In a state of confusion...)

remember... Tchernobyl's cloud : french scientists said in 1980's that the cloud had stopped at the frontier... (Nodding yes...)

[Fujisan 536]

as if the smoke would magically stop before drifting over my table.

maybe in France ? (Nodding yes...)

remember... Tchernobyl's cloud : french scientists said in 1980's that the cloud had stopped at the frontier... (Whistling...)

And Tchernobyl was only a 20 cigarettes a day man. (In a state of confusion...)

[sumofan 6]

as if the smoke would magically stop before drifting over my table.

maybe in France ? (Nodding yes...)

remember... Tchernobyl's cloud : french scientists said in 1980's that the cloud had stopped at the frontier... (Whistling...)

Belgium decided to scale down nuclear energy some years ago.

we now import it from France, from a reactor that is placed just over the border.

this is much better. if the thing blows up, the explosion will stop at the border. ;)

(In a state of confusion...)

we are investigating if we have to ramp up again, because the environmentalists have not been able to

supply an alternative source of energy.

the only thing the environmentalists are good at is shouting : 'you musn't do that' without delivering an alternative solution.

one thing that is even more stupid is that if they talk about pollution of nuclear plants, they show the

big steam clouds from the cooling towers. that has nothing to do with pollution. it is just water vapor.

[Kaikitsune Makoto 210]

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Then again the difference surely is that peeing in swimming pool doesn't contaminate the water in any way. Even if it would be considered "filthy substance" the amount of water in a regular swimming pool is so immense that ever 100 litres of pee doesn't make any difference. Imagine a 25 metre swimming pool with 12 metre width and on average for example 1.5 metre depth. 450 cubic metres of water there, it will make 450 000 litres of water. If 100 litres of pee is added, it will only be a 1/4500 part of the total content which is less than 0.02 %. That amount of pee is miniscule and can't be compared to passive smoking which does bring a lot of toxins into non-smokers' lungs.

even small amounts of smoke can induce lung cancer.

There is a huge difference in risk factor though between passive and active smoking. Naturally the difference comes from the fact that active smoking increases lung cancer risk so tremendously that a relatively small risk increase of passive smoking feels smaller than it is compared to many other risk factors of cancers. Still most lung cancer patients have been active smokers and not just passive.

[Jakusotsu 6,401]

If 100 litres of pee is added, it will only be a 1/4500 part of the total content which is less than 0.02 %. That amount of pee is miniscule and can't be compared to passive smoking which does bring a lot of toxins into non-smokers' lungs.

Fair enough. Just do never ever ask a homeopath's opinion about that, unless you're masochistically inclined to discuss religion with a zealot.

[Gusoyama 105]

and does not really do that much damage to you (in terms of the amount of smoke they will force you to inhale while you are in the restaurant)

the english proposal is nonsense. having a smoking area or allowing smoking in certain pubs will damage the profits of non smoking establishments. you know the story. three or four go out for a drink. only one is a smoker. do they go to the smoking or non-smoking place? in my experience it's always the whinging smoker who makes everyone go to a smoking pub.

this message might offend some smokers. tough. you offend me by ruining my air with your filthy chemicals.

This was a big argument in Boston a few years ago, when all bars and restaurants in Boston had to go smoke-free, but Cambridge, which is just over the river, did not. For the first month, there was a shift in business to Cambridge, but then people missed their favorite places, and just stuck it out and smoked outside when necessary, even in 0F temperatures. Now all of the area is smoke-free, and I'm happy.