Home

by **KateBush** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:38 am

Well, I've just woken up after a night on the tiles at the union and I have to say that after being subjected to the interior of that establishment my hair is a bit smoky (as in it smells of smoke, it's not on fire). So instead of having a lovely nice bath this morning I have to go and wash my hair AGAIN (I mean I only just washed it last night for going out)...I'm washing my hair cos smokers feel like polluting my air!

Anyone else wonder what a smoke free union would be like? I can't help thinking, this morning, that if it WAS smoke free then life would crtainly be easier and hair would not be smellier.

*My excuse for incoherence (this time at any rate) is that I still haven't sobered up yet. I blame the cheap doubles in the raisin...so if this makes no sense, sorry. I knew what I meant to say (as I told one of my tutors yesterday when I got an essay back...)

by **Simon Atkins** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:02 am

[s]KateBush wrote on 06:38, 17th Apr 2004:
Well, I've just woken up after a night on the tiles at the union and I have to say that after being subjected to the interior of that establishment my hair is a bit smoky (as in it smells of smoke, it's not on fire). So instead of having a lovely nice bath this morning I have to go and wash my hair AGAIN (I mean I only just washed it last night for going out)...I'm washing my hair cos smokers feel like polluting my air!

Anyone else wonder what a smoke free union would be like? I can't help thinking, this morning, that if it WAS smoke free then life would crtainly be easier and hair would not be smellier.

*My excuse for incoherence (this time at any rate) is that I still haven't sobered up yet. I blame the cheap doubles in the raisin...so if this makes no sense, sorry. I knew what I meant to say (as I told one of my tutors yesterday when I got an essay back...)

The area around teh bar and the concervatory should be smoke free.

by **RaphX** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:02 am

Should be, but isn't - that's why laws are being passed in an increasing number of countries/regions of countries, because establishments refuse to provide adequate separation or ventilation.

by **Stuart** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:04 am

Although I would prefer a smoke-free union, this is what happened in Leeds:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3497796.stm

by **mdec** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:05 am

[s]Simon Atkins wrote on 08:02, 17th Apr 2004:
[s]KateBush wrote on 06:38, 17th Apr 2004:[i]
The area around teh bar and the concervatory should be smoke free.

Smokers are the minority but their habit (lets face it drug addiction) effects the majority. Why should areas be designated 'smoke free'. If anything there should be a small smoking section, which would preferably be a small room as far away from the main union bar as possible.

by **Mr Tickle** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:08 am

NO Simon they are not Smoke free...

A smoke free zone is an area that is segregated from the smoking zone, and is ventilated. They are simply no smoking zones to which even the bar staff have been seen to ignore!

The new no-smoking policy of the union would have been good 10 years ago, now it is simply out of date, it still prioritises the views of smokers.

by **tramp** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:29 am

[s]Stuart wrote on 10:04, 17th Apr 2004:
Although I would prefer a smoke-free union, this is what happened in Leeds:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3497796.stm

Smoking is indeed such a strong part of the whole 'pub culture' it would take considerable effort to reverse such a trend. However, I think if 'smoking rooms' like they have in Singapore were introduced and heavily enforced it would make a difference. I know a few hardened smokers who had seriously cut down by the end of their trip there because they despised a) the inconvenience b) being crammed into a small space with fellow addicts c) the stench and d) looking so pathetic puffing away in a glass box designed for that very purpose. Give them a taste of their own medecine!

by **RaphX** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:48 am

The Leeds situation reveals another problem: one bar banning smoking on its premises will not make a positive difference in the long run - it has to apply to all bars in the area, otherwise they'll revert back to the old way for the sake of £££s.

Also, nevermind the threat of terrorism: Forest is socially much more dangerous to society (in the same way as Dr Atkins).

by **Happy-Go-Lucky** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:09 am

This probably sounds really gross, but if I come back from a night out and my hair stinks of smoke, I actually use something like Fabreaze or something similar on it. I do a quick couple of squirts lightly around like it was sirum spray, and give it a quick comb. You'd be suprised how well it works. Still smells odd, but not as bad as before. And it often saves me the pest of rewashing my hair when I only did it the night before.

by **exnihilo** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:13 am

You're right. It does sound gross.

[hr]The world is full of stupid people. I say we get rid of all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.

by **Bryn** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:23 am

Febreze IS gross. Spraying chemicals on the smell to cover it up. That's no way to get rid of a smell - you should wash whatever it is instead. I hate the advert where they guy spritzes it ALL over his house. It makes me cringe.

[hr]Come and see "Baby with the Bathwater" - http://baby.tz4.com

by **iohannes** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:43 am

Febreeze is useful for clothes, quick squirt and on the washing line to air. Wouldn't use it on my body though. Nor would I spray it all around my house.

by **Rrrr** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:26 pm

Using febreeze that does get rid of all smells is a damn sight better than the people that use body spray or deoderant etc to just mask the smell. yuck. you can get a febreeze like substance for hair, but i can never find it, it's basically a dry shampoo.

[hr]roll roll roll roll roll
squishity squish

by **Wong** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:32 pm

It's more disgusting that people have to resort to things like that to get rid of smoke, which could be so easily avoided in the first place.

[hr]You would not feel sadness if you never tasted joy
That's the curse of humans - born in passion, you destroy

by **Prophet Tenebrae** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:11 pm

The Union doesn't enforce its non-smoking areas.

by **S.P.I.G** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:20 pm

So instead of having a lovely nice bath this morning I have to go and wash my hair AGAIN (I mean I only just washed it last night for going out)...I'm washing my hair cos smokers feel like polluting my air!

Could you not just wash your hair in the bath? I mean, all you have to do is lather in shampoo and then dunk your head under the water and hey-presto you've washed your hair. Do people really not wash their hair every day as well and why do they treat it like a hassle or something special - your in the shower anyway so it'll only take an extra 30 seconds to use some shampoo.

Back to non-smoking... Leefds Union takings were down because other pubs in the vicinity allowed smoking, if Scotland (or even just Fife council) managed to implement a ban on all smoking then the problem would be solved.

by **KateBush** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:06 pm

Could you not just wash your hair in the bath? I mean, all you have to do is lather in shampoo and then dunk your head under the water and hey-presto you've washed your hair. Do people really not wash their hair every day as well and why do they treat it like a hassle or something special - your in the shower anyway so it'll only take an extra 30 seconds to use some shampoo.

-- Wash your hair in the bath? Yeah,. that's really clean, isn't it? Then it'll be full of soapy water! Yuk!!!

And as for 20 seconds...well all I can say to that is I WISH. But the point is, I'd only just washed my hair last night.

How would you feel if someone kept coming up to you in the pub and spilling their drink on you? You'd have to wash your clothes because of THEIR wrongdoing. It's the same with hair/clothes being around smoke.

Smoke is minging. If it only affected the smoker themselves then that would be fine, but its unhygienic and unhealthy.
[hr]
a red rose is not selfish because it wants to be red rose. It would be selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red, and roses. -Oscar Wilde

by **Plette** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:19 pm

Where I live, smoking has been prohibited in all public places (including bars and restaurants) for over two years now. I love it.

At first all the bar owners were complaining, saying it would hurt their business...but it hasn't. People have learned to go outside, have their cigarette, and then go back inside to continue dancing/eating/whatever.

Because smoking in public in not allowed anywhere here, smokers have to choose between going out to the bars and having their cigarettes outside, or staying at home and smoking alone in their room. It would be a very sad minrority indeed who chose the latter.

And I think that any business lost from those smokers who refuse to go to a bar if they can't smoke would be offset by business gained: people who might not have enjoyed bars before while it was smoky, but now feel comfortable going out, secure in the knowledge that they'll walk out smelling fairly good and with their eyes not watering from the smoke.

Smoking bans do work if implemented properly and enforced consistently. Smokers grumble at first, but they get used to it. Stepping outside for a smoke is now part of the smoker's culture, and I think it's really the best solution for everyone. In fact, most smokers I know won't even smoke in their own homes: they step outside onto the patio or step, so that they can enjoy their cigarettes when they like, but also enjoy a clean and nice-smelling house without tabacco stains everywhere.

[hr]Sola lingua bona est lingua morta.

by **Biitchboy** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:20 pm

[s]S.P.I.G wrote on 15:20, 17th Apr 2004:
Back to non-smoking... Leefds Union takings were down because other pubs in the vicinity allowed smoking, if Scotland (or even just Fife council) managed to implement a ban on all smoking then the problem would be solved.

But the government has no right to tell private establishments whether or not they can allow smoking on their private premises. So it is up to the individual owner whether to ban smoking or not. Just as it is up to the individual whether or not to go into a bar where smoking is allowed.

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lgbtsoc
*This post does not necessarily reflect the views of the society* :-P

by **Blanche** on Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:42 pm

Just like the government has no right to tell private establishments what hygiene or safety standards to implement?

I'm not sure yet whether I would support a smoking ban or not, but if it is true that passive smoking is a health hazard then the government has every reason to intervene. The whole 'just leave it up to unregulated capitalism' argument makes no sense.

Home

TheSinner.net

smoke free union?

smoke free union?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Who is online