 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
why do you think there has been more unwillingness to wear masks than to not smoke indoors since 2007..always surprised me how diligently ardent smokers complied and still do... even in the roughest most local of pubs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Not quite sure that the two could be compared really.
After all nobody at all could smoke in a public indoor space. And smoking deaths also couldn't be argued with. And it ONLY applied to smokers. This applies to everyone.
Of course most of us still have to run through the carcinogenic toxins every time we walk through a front doorway of a high street shop etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
yes but it was still an arbitury law centred on public health impeding on people's everyday lives that people, even out and out louts obeyed.
At the time some smoking organisations did protest but it was a tiny proportion. Most of the populace decided to follow suit... why not masks? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
I think a lot of smokers understood that many non smokers didn't like breathing in second hand smoke and a lot of smokers also understood the health implications of their habit.
Being asked to smoke outdoors was a much lesser restriction on civil liberty than being forced to wear a restrictive face covering (on the basis of inconclusive science).
In addition, there were a couple of benefits to smoking outdoors. Smoking areas become more communal areas where it was easier to converse with others for example |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"yes but it was still an arbitury law centred on public health impeding on people's everyday lives that people, even out and out louts obeyed.
At the time some smoking organisations did protest but it was a tiny proportion. Most of the populace decided to follow suit... why not masks? "
I don't think the smoking law was at all Arbitrary. It was tightly focused on a specific set of facts and people that smoke, and nobody in their right mind could argue the evidence collected from as far back as the 1940's.
COVID-19 evidence has only been collected from February/March this year. Just about everybody is still arguing the facts. So the Law/s for COVID-19 could be argued as being 'arbitrary ATM'. In-disputable facts will come, like smoking death facts did, in the longer-term.
But most importantly this affects everybody all at once currently. For the non-smokers back then they were already on a broad band-wagon of a ban.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Just to add - We can see a cigarette in anothers hand and we can smell it from a very long distance - Nobody can see a COVID carrier and even if you hear someone coughing badly you couldn't be sure.
So if you are stood in a bar with one or the other the one with the cigarette is obviously the one who would, without doubt, be put onto the street.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
it was just people's attitudes i was interested in. i work in security and i have to ask people to wear masks... was easier to ask people to smoke outside by miles.. abd that was something people had done for a hundred years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"it was just people's attitudes i was interested in. i work in security and i have to ask people to wear masks... was easier to ask people to smoke outside by miles.. abd that was something people had done for a hundred years "
All just probably because there is a much higher inconvenience factor and the 'truth' about covid isn't really established yet. The truth about smoking was for many many years before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
