PDA

View Full Version : Smoking poll



Last Minute
13-09-2010, 12:49 PM
Do you think Hibs should let us smokers out at half time for a smoke and keep everybody happy ?


I say yes, as it's so easy to keep everybody happy, just open one door and put one steward at the gates coming into the ground. would stop all the non smokers breathing our smoke in the toilets etc..


Simples

Woody70x2
13-09-2010, 12:53 PM
No harm done... YES.

MacBean
13-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Cant be hard to control, 3 stewards tops?
If it keeps my fellow hibees happy im in favour of it

wazoo1875
13-09-2010, 01:36 PM
Should be easy enough for a couple of stewards to handle ,
It's a YES from me !

Holmesdale Hibs
13-09-2010, 01:45 PM
Who voted no and why? Can't see any reason for not allowing it.

Last Minute
13-09-2010, 01:57 PM
Who voted no and why? Can't see any reason for not allowing it.



Calumhibee 1, col 02, siralbert kidd, slick shoes, spudster.

maybe they will tell us why?

degenerated
13-09-2010, 02:10 PM
the precedent was set at the Rangers game when it worked without any problems. :agree:

bod
13-09-2010, 02:18 PM
no,just do without till the games finished like everybody else who's at the game

degenerated
13-09-2010, 02:21 PM
no,just do without till the games finished like everybody else who's at the game

they dont though do they. i'm always reading complaints on here about people smoking in the toilets. which isn't fair on others.

here's an opportunity for the club to ensure that doesn't happen in the east, surely that's a positive thing :confused:

Phil MaGlass
13-09-2010, 02:26 PM
Why cant they just not wait, I have to wait for the boozer and dont get let out for a halftime beer. To steward this would also incurr costs (maybe not much) and mibbe Im just being a twonk here but, Im a non smoker and there is nothing worse than a smoker who has just been for a quick smoke sitting next to you and reeking of smoke, I actually find this worse than smoking belive it or not. Also the more places that have a ban on smoking is better for the health of the nation, we have the worst heart disease and cancer in Europe, anything that can be done to stop folk smoking is good in my book.
Mind you Im just a grumpy old guy.
Oh aye for some reason or another, smoking in bars doesnae bother me???
Unless it is really really bad.

degenerated
13-09-2010, 02:31 PM
Why cant they just not wait, I have to wait for the boozer and dont get let out for a halftime beer. To steward this would also incurr costs (maybe not much) and mibbe Im just being a twonk here but, Im a non smoker and there is nothing worse than a smoker who has just been for a quick smoke sitting next to you and reeking of smoke, I actually find this worse than smoking belive it or not. Also the more places that have a ban on smoking is better for the health of the nation, we have the worst heart disease and cancer in Europe, anything that can be done to stop folk smoking is good in my book.
Mind you Im just a grumpy old guy.
Oh aye for some reason or another, smoking in bars doesnae bother me???
Unless it is really really bad.

you are that concerned about the health of the nation you use the example of not being allowed out to get a pint. :greengrin

if that's the case i'm sure you'll join me in campaigning for a ban on junk food like pies in the stadium and behind the goals to stop selling beer. both of those are a bigger problem in scotland than smoking - i'm sure you'll agree.

Last Minute
13-09-2010, 02:40 PM
you are that concerned about the health of the nation you use the example of not being allowed out to get a pint. :greengrin

if that's the case i'm sure you'll join me in campaigning for a ban on junk food like pies in the stadium and behind the goals to stop selling beer. both of those are a bigger problem in scotland than smoking - i'm sure you'll agree.


Well said, after all they let smokers outside in corprate areas :hmmm:

Last Minute
13-09-2010, 02:47 PM
Why cant they just not wait, I have to wait for the boozer and dont get let out for a halftime beer. To steward this would also incurr costs (maybe not much) and mibbe Im just being a twonk here but, Im a non smoker and there is nothing worse than a smoker who has just been for a quick smoke sitting next to you and reeking of smoke, I actually find this worse than smoking belive it or not. Also the more places that have a ban on smoking is better for the health of the nation, we have the worst heart disease and cancer in Europe, anything that can be done to stop folk smoking is good in my book.
Mind you Im just a grumpy old guy.
Oh aye for some reason or another, smoking in bars doesnae bother me???
Unless it is really really bad.

Or maybe someone stinking of drink hurling abuse at players with foul language :grr:

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 02:55 PM
Or maybe someone stinking of drink hurling abuse at players with foul language :grr:

Well technically, if they are stinking of drink they shouldn't be admitted to the ground in the first place...being "under the influence of alcohol". I appreciate they could simply have doused themselves in a couple of pints of Best, and not actually drank it, but you get my drift.

That's a rule that doesn't apply to smokers incidentally - see it's not all doom and gloom for the chimneys :greengrin

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 02:58 PM
you are that concerned about the health of the nation you use the example of not being allowed out to get a pint. :greengrin



Rumour has it that having the odd pint might actually be good for you....it's the other 10 that are the problem......:wink:

Twa Cairpets
13-09-2010, 03:04 PM
No.

Reasons:

1) Opening for half time becomes 5 minutes either side of half time so another fag can be had. Up and down in seats either side of the 2nd half ko - its annoying enough at full time is it not?
2) Even if it is only 3 more stewards it is 3 more stewards who, frankly, dont need to be paid.
3) Its good for your health

degenerated
13-09-2010, 03:12 PM
But people are allowed up and down to go to the toilet or to get a pie. Should a stop be put to that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
13-09-2010, 03:14 PM
But people are allowed up and down to go to the toilet or to get a pie. Should a stop be put to that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're not illegal, though. However, given the contents of the pies....

marinello59
13-09-2010, 03:17 PM
Do you think Hibs should let us smokers out at half time for a smoke and keep everybody happy ?


I say yes, as it's so easy to keep everybody happy, just open one door and put one steward at the gates coming into the ground. would stop all the non smokers breathing our smoke in the toilets etc..


Simples

Yes from me, if a low cost system can be put in place.
Saying that the smokers will just do it anyway isn't going to win round the don't knows though is it? :greengrin

degenerated
13-09-2010, 03:26 PM
They're not illegal, though. However, given the contents of the pies....

Smoking tobacco in an outdoor environment that isnt enclosed isn't illegal either is it, or I've definitely missed something




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NORTHERNHIBBY
13-09-2010, 03:33 PM
Perhaps we should get a smoking section, just like the singing section. Entrance of course would be set at £25 to cover the cost of fire extinguishers and brushes and shovels for the extra stewards required to sweep up all the fag dowps.

Jack
13-09-2010, 03:37 PM
Although the back of the East is open its still classed as being within the stadium. There is no smoking allowed within the stadium.

A way round this might be leasing that area to me for a peppercorn rent and me turning it into something not part of the stadium – like a smoking area for example :greengrin

I wonder how other stadia are allowed an official smoking area????

delbert
13-09-2010, 03:40 PM
I say yes, as long as the smelly so and sos nip home and change their reeking clothes before coming back in to sit beside the non smokers.

CropleyWasGod
13-09-2010, 03:44 PM
Smoking tobacco in an outdoor environment that isnt enclosed isn't illegal either is it, or I've definitely missed something




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cross purposes.... note to self, try not to think about Hibs.net at work... :greengrin

MSK
13-09-2010, 03:45 PM
I say yes, as long as the smelly so and sos nip home and change their reeking clothes before coming back in to sit beside the non smokers.Behave yersel ..:bitchy:

stuart
13-09-2010, 03:58 PM
its a great idea i was there on sat werent going to open the doors but more people complained aboot it the did an the usual 2 police 5 stewards to get us bk in what a joke would rather go outside than in the toilets what people did when they were getting everyone bk in side the bottom gates were closed so dont no why there are not alowing it
common sence hibs be fair we spend good money at the club and the rubbish that we watched in the 1st half we needed a smoke :thumbsup:

.Sean.
13-09-2010, 04:05 PM
I voted yes, simply because i'm fed up going to the toilets at half-time only to see a smog of smoke coming from the cubicles thanks to selfish smokers. The bogs are rank when they're full of your second-hand smoke :agree:

basehibby
13-09-2010, 04:09 PM
YES - it does no harm so why not?

Possible objections: Contravenes the club's overall stance on smoking - well TBH I don't aprove of this preachy holier than thou health nazi policy. Fair enough to ban smoking in enclosed spaces in the interest of public health - or to ban it from the squad of professional athletes on whose performance it could impinge. But to ban your paying customers from enjoying a smoke in circumstances which will harm nobody but (possibly) themselves is a load of sanctimonious drivel IMO.

Extra stewarding costs: Considering how many stewards must be kept busy at HT patrolling the toilets and the stairwells, I don't think this argument holds any water - in fact the stewards' HT workload would probably be reduced and many could be diverted back to more conventional stewarding activities such as harrassing paying customers for standing up and singing at a football match :rolleyes:

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 04:12 PM
If they are going to stop people going out for a fag then they should do the decent thing and stop people smoking in the toilets.

But they won't - they can't - it just isn't under their control. And they should stop pretending that ER is a non-smoking stadium, because it isn't.

Green_one
13-09-2010, 04:19 PM
Although the back of the East is open its still classed as being within the stadium. There is no smoking allowed within the stadium.

[/SIZE]

So basically the smokers would have to walk all the way down to the road, have their fag and walk all the way back? Seems impractical to me, both in terms of time and stewarding (you would have to steward the entire area behind the stands - not a 3 man job).

There are lots of things you cannot do within the stadium and this is one of them. Can we have a poll next for how many want standing, smoking and drinking all brought back, just as a study in futility.

Twa Cairpets
13-09-2010, 04:24 PM
Been to loads of all-seater stadia in England, all no-smoking and the punters there (in much bigger crowds) seem to be able to manage that awful extra 55minutes without a fag, or a smoking area.

Hibby70
13-09-2010, 04:30 PM
quite frankly anyone so stupid to take up smoking in the first place should be made to suffer as much as possible. If you are going to smoke can you please inhale all the smoke and eat the butts. Yet to see any smoker finish a fag and not throw the end on the ground as if it will just magically disolve.

.Sean.
13-09-2010, 04:30 PM
If you started to let folk in the East smoke, it would only be fair to let those in the FF, West and South out for a smoke.


Smoking out the back of the East is also not allowed as the back of the stand is part of the stadium.


Won't happen.

iwasthere1972
13-09-2010, 04:31 PM
I say yes, as long as the smelly so and sos nip home and change their reeking clothes before coming back in to sit beside the non smokers.

I'm a veggie so in that case I would petition that all fans refrain from eating pies and pizzas etc unless they do it in the concourse, toilets or outside. Some of them could do with missing out on their half-time scoff before there is a need to allocate them a seat for each bum cheek. I would also like to petition the club to change their ticket prices according to persons weight. That would do the trick.

Smoking - Yes please.

iwasthere1972
13-09-2010, 04:34 PM
If you started to let folk in the East smoke, it would only be fair to let those in the FF, West and South out for a smoke.


Smoking out the back of the East is also not allowed as the back of the stand is part of the stadium.


Won't happen.

It is up until you enter the turnstiles. Fag before the game is no problem.

.Sean.
13-09-2010, 04:38 PM
It is up until you enter the turnstiles. Fag before the game is no problem.
Perhaps they'll tolerate it because they know you're not getting out during the game?

Beefster
13-09-2010, 04:48 PM
If only to stop a thread about it every week, yes.

HibbyAndy
13-09-2010, 04:51 PM
A dinnae smoke so am easy :cool2:

MSK
13-09-2010, 04:52 PM
A dinnae smoke so am easy :cool2:There's a surprise ...:greengrin

degenerated
13-09-2010, 04:53 PM
If you started to let folk in the East smoke, it would only be fair to let those in the FF, West and South out for a smoke.


Smoking out the back of the East is also not allowed as the back part of the stadium.


Won't happen.

how come the corporate punters are allowed out into the car park at the back of the west at half time if they choose.

is the access road deemed part of the stadium. it isn't substantially enclosed so under the provisions of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act, 2005 it's hard to see how that should be the case.

fwiw i can and will go without a smoke for the duration of a game, as i did at the rangers game when it was clearly allowed. Others, however, don't appear to want to do so and the inevitable unsavoury situation of people smoking in toilets occurs. this is grossly unfair on the majority of people who do not smoke and should not have to be inflicted with this, a common sense initiative like this (if it is indeed practical and legal) removes that from the equation- i would hope.

if i was going to the cinema, i could if i chose, go out have a cigarette and come back, i could do it at the theatre and at concerts. is it such a big ask for this to be done during half time at a football match?

HibbyAndy
13-09-2010, 04:55 PM
There's a surprise ...:greengrin

Cheers K :greengrin

As long as you didnae say 'simple' :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


:wink:

:greengrin

:cool2:

iwasthere1972
13-09-2010, 05:00 PM
Perhaps they'll tolerate it because they know you're not getting out during the game?

Held captive. :grr: Maybe just draft in some Prison wardens from Saughton on matchday.

.Sean.
13-09-2010, 05:06 PM
Held captive. :grr: Maybe just draft in some Prison wardens from Saughton on matchday.
Would they really be any worse than the mini Hitler's who masquerade as Steward's in their oversized illuminous jackets?

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 05:10 PM
Although the back of the East is open its still classed as being within the stadium. There is no smoking allowed within the stadium.


And you know this for a fact or did you just make it up?

If true, it means that anyone can get into the stadium without a ticket - I have a sneaking feeling that this shouldn't be allowed.

JE89
13-09-2010, 05:18 PM
Can't people last ninety minutes without smoking a fag?

I've said no, simply because I wouldn't want to have to sit during the second half with people next to me stinking of stale smoke. Not pleasant at all

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 05:21 PM
Can't people last ninety minutes without smoking a fag?

I've said no, simply because I wouldn't want to have to sit during the second half with people next to me stinking of stale smoke. Not pleasant at all

But you'd be happy to sit through the first half with them beside you? Hypocrite! :greengrin

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 05:38 PM
It does depress me that the main debates seem to be along the lines of:

Should there be an area for smokers or not

or

They should be allowed an area out the back because they'll only smoke in the toilets otherwise

I don't just mean here, incidentally, I mean this sort of debate is country-wide.

Is the option (let's call it option z), of actually considering the benefits of trying to give up smoking such a crazy concept?

Let's look at it from a Hibs perspective:

1) We wouldn't have this debate every week
2) You will live longer = more season ticket revenue for the 'tache
3) The money you save on fags every week could be spent in the club shop
4) With having nothing to get worked up about at half time, or need to sneak into the toilet, you might spend more on food or feel the need to buy a programme to read at half time
5) Your lack of cigarette craving induced stress might help create a happier vibe in the East Stand = less booing = better results (not guaranteed, I should add)
6) You wouln't feel the need to liken some of us to an organisation who murdered over a million people in concentration camps, many of whom were killed, rather ironically, by gassing

More seriously, I do understand how hard it is - My Dad managed it, but my Mum has not. Then again, she hasn't really tried, and has gone down the "Government are Fascists etc" route.

Ironically, it was my Dad we lost to heart disease in March. Perhaps if he didn't smoke most of his life he would still be here, wouldn't have missed his daughters wedding, or his grandaughters first day at school. Perhaps not.

Just a thought likes....

basehibby
13-09-2010, 05:38 PM
Can't people last ninety minutes without smoking a fag?

I've said no, simply because I wouldn't want to have to sit during the second half with people next to me stinking of stale smoke. Not pleasant at all


But surely at the moment that means you don't want to sit next to anyone who's been to the bog for a pish as well as anyone who's been there for a fag?!?

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 05:45 PM
But surely at the moment that means you don't want to sit next to anyone who's been to the bog for a pish as well as anyone who's been there for a fag?!?

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know if there are actually 21st century hand-washing facilities in the new East? (I confess I thought that was where you were going with your post until I realised it was about the fact the toilet exit looks like the stage entrance on "Stars in their Eyes") :greengrin

speedy_gonzales
13-09-2010, 05:58 PM
I voted 'NO', nothing to with the act of smoking but the act of letting folk out then back in the stadium willy nilly.
As the law stands just now, smokers must be outwith the stadium. Any system in place would have to be applicable to ALL stands, this could get messy when we share the South.
Then, whether we like it or not, there will be time and money issues. Do we restrict 'open doors' to the half time interval, a little before a little after, or for the whole game?
Like I said, I'm not against it for the act of smoking, I just can't see us being able to decant maybe 20% of the stadium and getting them back in without disrupting everyone else.
Incidentally, last season I had to leave the satnd for a few minutes to get a document from my car(I was on-call and had to take an important call), I got out the exit gate OK but I couldn't get back in. The steward said my ticket had been scanned, and for all they knew, someone could leave with 2 cards in an attempt to get another person in, gratis!?!

degenerated
13-09-2010, 06:06 PM
It does depress me that the main debates seem to be along the lines of:

Should there be an area for smokers or not

or

They should be allowed an area out the back because they'll only smoke in the toilets otherwise

I don't just mean here, incidentally, I mean this sort of debate is country-wide.

Is the option (let's call it option z), of actually considering the benefits of trying to give up smoking such a crazy concept?

Let's look at it from a Hibs perspective:

1) We wouldn't have this debate every week
2) You will live longer = more season ticket revenue for the 'tache
3) The money you save on fags every week could be spent in the club shop
4) With having nothing to get worked up about at half time, or need to sneak into the toilet, you might spend more on food or feel the need to buy a programme to read at half time
5) Your lack of cigarette craving induced stress might help create a happier vibe in the East Stand = less booing = better results (not guaranteed, I should add)
6) You wouln't feel the need to liken some of us to an organisation who murdered over a million people in concentration camps, many of whom were killed, rather ironically, by gassing

More seriously, I do understand how hard it is - My Dad managed it, but my Mum has not. Then again, she hasn't really tried, and has gone down the "Government are Fascists etc" route.

Ironically, it was my Dad we lost to heart disease in March. Perhaps if he didn't smoke most of his life he would still be here, wouldn't have missed his daughters wedding, or his grandaughters first day at school. Perhaps not.

Just a thought likes....

i think you have perhaps misinterpreted the use of the smoking in toilets bit its not a threat by those who choose to smoke its merely pointing out what is tantamount to anti-social behaviour, unfortunately it goes on everywhere. however, i remember reading on here that it didn't when they let folk out at the rangers game. surely this could be seen as the opportunity for potential for a win/win situation, no?

perhaps giving up smoking isn't such a crazy concept but is freedom of choice such a crazy concept here as well. whereas you and others, understandably, don't appreciate ETS i and other smokers don't really appreciate this societal craving from non smokers to act as missionaries.

here's a deal, i'll smoke in a socially acceptable manner away from enclosed spaces, away from those who don't want to suffer it and won't blow smoke in peoples faces if they don't bore the erse off me with their anti smoking rhetoric.

i'm old and wise enough to understand what impact my lifestyle choices have on me.

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 06:13 PM
ITS 90 MINUTES??!!??!!??!!

ok im a non smoker but a good few of my mates smoke and i dont really see why this is needed ( or wanted ).. it WILL be more hassle for the stewards no doubt about that and also think it will be alot of hassle for those who are out smoking.

apologies for moaning ;)

paget

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 06:26 PM
.... The steward said my ticket had been scanned, and for all they knew, someone could leave with 2 cards in an attempt to get another person in, gratis!?!

Bad luck on you - I guess we must be light years away from having the technology to scan someone's ticket 'Out' in such circumstances.

Similarly, a system to give someone a 'pass' to leave and then come back in would take an inordinate amount of organisation and technology - I mean, you'd probably need to have a photocopier and a laminator to start with!

Sorry for the sarcasm but in my opinion the reply you were given translates directly to "we don't give a sh*t".

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 06:32 PM
here's a deal, i'll smoke in a socially acceptable manner away from enclosed spaces, away from those who don't want to suffer it and won't blow smoke in peoples faces if they don't bore the erse off me with their anti smoking rhetoric.

.

Fair enough, but not every smoker will have the same responsible attitute as you will they? For eveyone one of you, there will be another smoker who thinks it's ok to smoke around others. Unfortunately you suffer, but the drive is to ensure that the definition of "socially acceptable" becomes as tight as possible.

What's your view on smokers who smoke in the house with their children about? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious. I know one of the anticipated effects of the smoking ban would be a rise in childhood illness and smoking take up due to smokers being forced to smoke at home, as their "last refuge"

My mum continues to smoke, but "not when our daughter is there". That actually means she'll put a cigarette out the second before we come in the door, and will nip into another room several times. Net result, the house in general is just as smoky, and we tend to limit the number of visits we make because of it.

Now, you might say I'm being a bit of a tw@t, but my mum, though a 20-a-day smoker drove it into us every day that we should never start, because we had the benefit of knowing better. I still can't get my head round the fact she refuses to give up.

You might also have worked out that I spent 18 years growing up in a smoky house, and it "did me no harm" (well, apart from being a bore, that is) :greengrin

Obviously, I get the award for completely igboring the main point of you post...I'll try to make this my last rant on the subject. Save for voting to let you have your leper colony at the back.

wee 162
13-09-2010, 06:34 PM
ITS 90 MINUTES??!!??!!??!!

ok im a non smoker but a good few of my mates smoke and i dont really see why this is needed ( or wanted ).. it WILL be more hassle for the stewards no doubt about that and also think it will be alot of hassle for those who are out smoking.

apologies for moaning ;)

paget

Except it isn't 90 minutes is it? Going by the experience of getting into the East on Saturday you'll need to be there for half 2 to get in for kick off if you're a non ST holder. Then you have half time which is fairly standard procedure. Then it's a good 10 minutes to get out if you're anywhere near the back. So let's call it two and a half hours which is much closer?

It took 4 stewards to police it during the huns game. I'd be willing to bet it takes more than 4 stewards to police the bogs (completely inneffectively) to stop people smoking in there.

I'd also add that the smoking ban throughout the stadium didn't apply in the terracing before it was knocked down. It was just completely ignored.

degenerated
13-09-2010, 06:51 PM
Fair enough, but not every smoker will have the same responsible attitute as you will they? For eveyone one of you, there will be another smoker who thinks it's ok to smoke around others. Unfortunately you suffer, but the drive is to ensure that the definition of "socially acceptable" becomes as tight as possible.

What's your view on smokers who smoke in the house with their children about? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely curious. I know one of the anticipated effects of the smoking ban would be a rise in childhood illness and smoking take up due to smokers being forced to smoke at home, as their "last refuge"

My mum continues to smoke, but "not when our daughter is there". That actually means she'll put a cigarette out the second before we come in the door, and will nip into another room several times. Net result, the house in general is just as smoky, and we tend to limit the number of visits we make because of it.

Now, I might say I'm being a bit of a tw@t, but my mum, though a 20-a-day smoker drove it into us every day that we should never start, because we had the benefit of knowing better. I still can't get my head round the fact she refuses to give up.

You might also have worked out that I spent 18 years growing up in a smoky house, and it "did me no harm" (well, apart from being a bore, that is) :greengrin

Obviously, I get the award for completely igboring the main point of you post...I'll try to make this my last rant on the subject. Save for voting to let you have your leper colony at the back.

i think smoking indoors with children around is a despicable act to be honest. i was also of the opinion that the smoking ban was a positive thing in general, i can fully understand why people dislike it so much and it's little hardship on me to stand outside when i wish to partake. likewise at the games, whilst i can go without it would be good to have the choice and as previously stated for those without a social conscience about smoking inside the stand it gives them no excuse for doing so.

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 06:52 PM
Except it isn't 90 minutes is it? Going by the experience of getting into the East on Saturday you'll need to be there for half 2 to get in for kick off if you're a non ST holder. Then you have half time which is fairly standard procedure. Then it's a good 10 minutes to get out if you're anywhere near the back. So let's call it two and a half hours which is much closer?

It took 4 stewards to police it during the huns game. I'd be willing to bet it takes more than 4 stewards to police the bogs (completely inneffectively) to stop people smoking in there.

I'd also add that the smoking ban throughout the stadium didn't apply in the terracing before it was knocked down. It was just completely ignored.

Right sir,, half 2 if your not a S.T holder??? you buy your ticket and can enter the stand 5 minutes before k.o and be in your seat for k.o. Its not the Bernabeu. From the back it takes 10 minutes to get out the stand, again its not the Bernabeu. So ,, being picky, lets call it..... 2 hours.

For Easter Road to do this it would be alot of hassle.. even though you say 4 stewards for the east against the huns ,, you have to have stewards on each stand and there is the hassle of upper tier folk.. I can understand why you would like it, i mean i would like to have a hot burd sitting beside me at the game but instead its my mate.. Its just not needed..

wee 162
13-09-2010, 06:59 PM
Right sir,, half 2 if your not a S.T holder??? you buy your ticket and can enter the stand 5 minutes before k.o and be in your seat for k.o. Its not the Bernabeu. From the back it takes 10 minutes to get out the stand, again its not the Bernabeu. So ,, being picky, lets call it..... 2 hours.
I arrived at the ground at 2:45 on Saturday. I got in at 3:15. So lets call it half an hour since that's how long it took to get into the stadium for me on Saturday.


For Easter Road to do this it would be alot of hassle.. even though you say 4 stewards for the east against the huns ,, you have to have stewards on each stand and there is the hassle of upper tier folk.. I can understand why you would like it, i mean i would like to have a hot burd sitting beside me at the game but instead its my mate.. Its just not needed..

Except the East has an entirely closed bit behind it which none of the other stands do. That's where it's possible. Oh, and those in the corporate area in the West apparently...

And if it's just not needed, perhaps you could explain why every single game last season after I was moved to the South had people smoking in the bogs. Something which happens in the other stands as well according to people I know. Which is something which does have an effect on non smokers. Which doing the exact same thing as they did at the huns game doesn't!

Jones28
13-09-2010, 07:06 PM
Would there not be some risk of people trying to sneak into the ground at half time?

I voted no as its completely contradictory. A sporting venue shouldn't have to make special allowances for smokers.

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 07:08 PM
I arrived at the ground at 2:45 on Saturday. I got in at 3:15. So lets call it half an hour since that's how long it took to get into the stadium for me on Saturday.

It takes 2 minutes to get from the concourse to the seat does it not??:confused: If your including getting to the ticket office and then getting to the stand its a bit different. SURELY you can smoke at the bottom of the East Stand of the concourse before you go into the stand, can you not ???????:confused: so lets call it 5 minutes ;)



Except the East has an entirely closed bit behind it which none of the other stands do. That's where it's possible. Oh, and those in the corporate area in the West apparently...

And if it's just not needed, perhaps you could explain why every single game last season after I was moved to the South had people smoking in the bogs. Something which happens in the other stands as well according to people I know. Which is something which does have an effect on non smokers. Which doing the exact same thing as they did at the huns game doesn't!

It's not needed! Its wanted.. how can you argue that smoking areas or being allowed out the ground for a fag is NEEDED? The smoking in the bogs happens due to people wanting a smoke, or more importantly poor policing and security.

Paget

mcaitchi
13-09-2010, 07:11 PM
Just Cant Believe - That 40% of the poll - Dont want us smokers to go outside..

:confused:

ok - wait until the toilets and the area around you while your queing for a nice greasy pie will probably be reeking of cigarette smoke !!! :rolleyes:


maybe Then you wouldnt feel jealous, about the smokers being allowed outside ???

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 07:14 PM
Just Cant Believe - That 40% of the poll - Dont want us smokers to go outside..

:confused:

ok - wait until the toilets and the area around you while your queing for a nice greasy pie will probably be reeking of cigarette smoke !!! :rolleyes:


maybe Then you wouldnt feel jealous, about the smokers being allowed outside ???

It's going to smell of p*ss and sh*te anyway

iwasthere1972
13-09-2010, 07:16 PM
ITS 90 MINUTES??!!??!!??!!

ok im a non smoker but a good few of my mates smoke and i dont really see why this is needed ( or wanted ).. it WILL be more hassle for the stewards no doubt about that and also think it will be alot of hassle for those who are out smoking.

apologies for moaning ;)

paget

I can last 105 minutes :wink: without the need to feed my face with chips, pie, pizzas or whatever folk leave their seat with ten or 15 minutes of the first half still to go to have.

So if they can't do without food during the match then I want a smoke. :cool2:

Pretty simple.

Yes I know Hibs make money from food and don't from cigarettes but it's not a good enough argument to say "It's only 90 minutes" although it is 105 minutes at least.

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 07:19 PM
I can last 105 minutes :wink: without the need to feed my face with chips, pie, pizzas or whatever folk leave their seat with ten or 15 minutes of the first half still to go to have.

So if they can't do without food during the match then I want a smoke. :cool2:

Pretty simple.

Yes I know Hibs make money from food and don't from cigarettes but it's not a good enough argument to say "It's only 90 minutes" although it is 105 minutes at least.


Think they are trying to beat the queues mate :cool2:

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 07:22 PM
Just Cant Believe - That 40% of the poll - Dont want us smokers to go outside..

:confused:



My goodness - not everyone agrees with your opinion shock! What's next, a hung parliament? :greengrin

I wonder, with the guys who clamoured to have this poll "so they could send the results to Hibs" will still be keen to do so? Or accept that it's not such a black-and-white issue?

Democracy in action. Of course, the "want a smoking area" gang still have a bigger majority than most UK governments had. And while I'm at it, have you noticed that all the candidates in elections to serve in government get to stand in their chosen seats? (or is that another debate) :devil:

iwasthere1972
13-09-2010, 07:28 PM
Think they are trying to beat the queues mate :cool2:

What queues? :greengrin

Anyway there you go they would rather miss watching Hibs in favour of getting themselves a scoff.

Just can't understand it. Probably same folk who turn up late and leave early.

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 07:32 PM
My goodness - not everyone agrees with your opinion shock! What's next, a hung parliament? :greengrin

I wonder, with the guys who clamoured to have this poll "so they could send the results to Hibs" will still be keen to do so? Or accept that it's not such a black-and-white issue?

Democracy in action. Of course, the "want a smoking area" gang still have a bigger majority than most UK governments had. And while I'm at it, have you noticed that all the candidates in elections to serve in government get to stand in their chosen seats? (or is that another debate) :devil:

And of course we should all just ignore the poor guy waiting outside the cubicles with his wee boy who can't use the urinals but can't get into pee because of some moron in there having a fag.

And if his wee boy has to end up wetting his pants then hey thats just a small price to pay for Disco Dave maintaining his favoured stance as a sanctimonious git. :greengrin

fat freddy
13-09-2010, 07:32 PM
they should let the addicts have their fix but hand out copies of 'The Allan Carr Easyway to stop smoking' book...its changed the lives of millions of those whose lungs are owned by the tobacco companies,mine included

brydekirk
13-09-2010, 07:34 PM
this is a joke, theres no need for any NO votes on this issue. what harm will it do?.
mind your own , ya bunch o hypocondreact chemist shop smellin sh@ts.:bye:

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 07:34 PM
What queues? :greengrin

Anyway there you go they would rather miss watching Hibs in favour of getting themselves a scoff.

Just can't understand it. Probably same folk who turn up late and leave early.

haha wouldnt be surprised mate.. get about 30 minutes action in in total.

My dad used to send me down 5 minutes before HT when i was younger haha

Kevvy1875
13-09-2010, 07:47 PM
40% of people dont want the people who smoke to be able to use their own 15 minutes at half time to pop outside the doors for a cigarette.

Trying to get my head round it but cant.

Judgemental in the extreme. I think you type's just dont like the idea of smoking and dont want people to do it and therefore....sensing your oppurtunity to make this point vote no. Sad.

And btw...its not that I 'cannot' go 90 mins without a ciggy, I would just rather 'not' go 90 mins without a ciggy.

I am not a criminal. I enjoy a cigarette. To relax and from a social point of view(obviously with other smokers).

I am aware of the health dangers but consider that there are other far more dangerous things we are exposed to daily that are considered 'acceptable'.




A wee story....hows this for irony.

Once upon a time at a bus stop in Shandwick Place I stood having a Ciggy whilst waiting on the No3 bus when I hear this female's voice about 10 yds behind me(I had deliberatley stood on my own by a fair distance). The voice said 'oh for christs sake...invading OUR space with your smoke! I was 10yds away....

In this time while had been smoking said ciggy, 3 rather large LRT vehicles had stopped at this bus stop spewing their exhaust into the surrounding atmosphere while they stood and of course all th other passing traffic doing likewise to a lesser extent. This 'pollution' is actually tangible in the air, you can taste it.

So there you have the irony.


People enjoy getting on their high horses about trivial stuff. And if some government scaremongering or some TV commercials give them the ammo to do it then these individuals are never slow to miss an oppurtunity.


Let us outside for a ciggy, we wont blow the smoke your way....PROMISE.

wee 162
13-09-2010, 07:49 PM
It takes 2 minutes to get from the concourse to the seat does it not??:confused: If your including getting to the ticket office and then getting to the stand its a bit different. SURELY you can smoke at the bottom of the East Stand of the concourse before you go into the stand, can you not ???????:confused: so lets call it 5 minutes ;)
No, read what I said again. It took 30 minutes to get into the ground on Saturday. So to make sure I will be in for kick off, I reckon I'll need to be there 30 minutes before kick off.

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 07:53 PM
And of course we should all just ignore the poor guy waiting outside the cubicles with his wee boy who can't use the urinals but can't get into pee because of some moron in there having a fag.

And if his wee boy has to end up wetting his pants then hey thats just a small price to pay for Disco Dave maintaining his favoured stance as a sanctimonious git. :greengrin

Well, no it wouldn't, because you might want to note that I in fact voted for your little pen of slow, smelly, yellow fingered suicide. :wink:

And thanks for confirming that, faced with someone breaking the rules by smoking in the toilets, it would never cross your mind that the fault would lie squarely with said smoker.....supposedly you also subscribe to the theory that rioting Huns in Manchester was solely the fault of "poor policing"....

Yours sanctimoniously,

Disc "the photo honeymoon is over" O'Dave :greengrin

Saorsa
13-09-2010, 07:54 PM
40% of people dont want the people who smoke to be able to use their own 15 minutes at half time to pop outside the doors for a cigarette.

Trying to get my head round it but cant.

Judgemental in the extreme. I think you type's just dont like the idea of smoking and dont want people to do it and therefore....sensing your oppurtunity to make this point vote no. Sad.

And btw...its not that I 'cannot' go 90 mins without a ciggy, I would just rather 'not' go 90 mins without a ciggy.

I am not a criminal. I enjoy a cigarette. To relax and from a social point of view(obviously with other smokers).

I am aware of the health dangers but consider that there are other far more dangerous things we are exposed to daily that are considered 'acceptable'.




A wee story....hows this for irony.

Once upon a time at a bus stop in Shandwick Place I stood having a Ciggy whilst waiting on the No3 bus when I hear this female's voice about 10 yds behind me(I had deliberatley stood on my own by a fair distance). The voice said 'oh for christs sake...invading OUR space with your smoke! I was 10yds away....

In this time while had been smoking said ciggy, 3 rather large LRT vehicles had stopped at this bus stop spewing their exhaust into the surrounding atmosphere while they stood and of course all th other passing traffic doing likewise to a lesser extent. This 'pollution' is actually tangible in the air, you can taste it.

So there you have the irony.


People enjoy getting on their high horses about trivial stuff. And if some government scaremongering or some TV commercials give them the ammo to do it then these individuals are never slow to miss an oppurtunity.


Let us outside for a ciggy, we wont blow the smoke your way....PROMISE.You will be if you smoke inside Easter Road and get caught :greengrin
































but seriously if it can be organised without too much hassle, then why not let folk out? :agree:

HibeePaj
13-09-2010, 07:55 PM
No, read what I said again. It took 30 minutes to get into the ground on Saturday. So to make sure I will be in for kick off, I reckon I'll need to be there 30 minutes before kick off.

Yes ive read it and have read it again.

Nope still dont see what your trying to say. If you are saying that you were in your seat 30 minutes after arriving at easter road thats fair enough. BUT im quite sure that only the last 5 minutes of those 30 was the time where you couldnt smoke.
NO?

degenerated
13-09-2010, 07:57 PM
Yes ive read it and have read it again.

Nope still dont see what your trying to say. If you are saying that you were in your seat 30 minutes after arriving at easter road thats fair enough. BUT im quite sure that only the last 5 minutes of those 30 was the time where you couldnt smoke.
NO?

maybe he didn't want to impose his fag smoke over others in the queue that potentially didn't smoke :dunno:

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Judgemental in the extreme. I think you type's just dont like the idea of smoking and dont want people to do it and therefore....sensing your oppurtunity to make this point vote no. Sad.



Just to clarify, you start a sentence with "Judgemental in the extreme" then proceed to decide, without knowing anyones reasons, or even reading any of those reasons in the post above, that it's all just some sad people trying to make a point.

Then you go on to tell a wee story on irony.

Stunningly brilliant. :stirrer:

marinello59
13-09-2010, 08:01 PM
Just Cant Believe - That 40% of the poll - Dont want us smokers to go outside..

:confused:

ok - wait until the toilets and the area around you while your queing for a nice greasy pie will probably be reeking of cigarette smoke !!! :rolleyes:


maybe Then you wouldnt feel jealous, about the smokers being allowed outside ???

So your argument is, vote for this or we will just do whatever we want anyway. You ain't gonna win many converts with that degree of selfishness are you?

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 08:12 PM
Well, no it wouldn't, because you might want to note that I in fact voted for your little pen of slow, smelly, yellow fingered suicide. :wink:

And thanks for confirming that, faced with someone breaking the rules by smoking in the toilets, it would never cross your mind that the fault would lie squarely with said smoker.....supposedly you also subscribe to the theory that rioting Huns in Manchester was solely the fault of "poor policing"....

Yours sanctimoniously,

Disc "the photo honeymoon is over" O'Dave :greengrin

Since I don't smoke the premise of your post is meaningless. Mind you it would still be compete drivel even if I was a smoker.

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 08:19 PM
So your argument is, vote for this or we will just do whatever we want anyway. You ain't gonna win many converts with that degree of selfishness are you?

Assuming we are reading the same post then that is not what he is arguing. What he claimed will happen is what indeed will happen - there is no stated threat to do it himself.

Disc O'Dave
13-09-2010, 08:24 PM
Since I don't smoke the premise of your post is meaningless. Mind you it would still be compete drivel even if I was a smoker.


Well, no it wouldn't, because you might want to note that I in fact voted for their little pen of slow, smelly, yellow fingered suicide. :wink:

And thanks for confirming that, faced with someone breaking the rules by smoking in the toilets, it would never cross your mind that the fault would lie squarely with said smoker.....supposedly you also subscribe to the theory that rioting Huns in Manchester was solely the fault of "poor policing"....

Yours sanctimoniously,



There, I apologise, it now has a premise.

Can't do anything about the drivel, I'm afraid.

marinello59
13-09-2010, 08:30 PM
Assuming we are reading the same post then that is not what he is arguing. What he claimed will happen is what indeed will happen - there is no stated threat to do it himself.

I am sure he will be along to confirm that he won't be doing that himself then.

Saorsa
13-09-2010, 08:33 PM
Can't people last ninety minutes without smoking a fag?

I've said no, simply because I wouldn't want to have to sit during the second half with people next to me stinking of stale smoke. Not pleasant at allThat's an interesting view point. Do you have any family members/friends that smoke? If no fair enough, end of question.

If you do, do you ever socialise with them, say in the pub? If you do, do you not sit beside them for the rest of the night efter they have nipped out for their 1st fag because they'll stink of stale smoke when they come back in.

Arch Stanton
13-09-2010, 08:40 PM
I am sure he will be along to confirm that he won't be doing that himself then.

OK, if that's what keeps you happy.:agree:

Sir David Gray
13-09-2010, 09:07 PM
Behave yersel ..:bitchy:

The guy probably didn't express his point of view particularly well but I agree entirely with the sentiment in his post.

I would rather not sit next to someone who is stinking of cigarette smoke for 45 minutes either.

The way I see it is, I know that smoking will never be banned but the health of this nation is so bad, I believe that anything that restricts the opportunities that people have to smoke is a good thing in my book.

degenerated
13-09-2010, 09:16 PM
The guy probably didn't express his point of view particularly well but I agree entirely with the sentiment in his post.

I would rather not sit next to someone who is stinking of cigarette smoke for 45 minutes either.

The way I see it is, I know that smoking will never be banned but the health of this nation is so bad, I believe that anything that restricts the opportunities that people have to smoke is a good thing in my book.

isnt the nation lucky to have such paragons of virtue as yourself looking out for the health and welfare of those whom you don't think should have the freedom of choice.

i salute your piety :bitchy:

what a patronising and quite frankly sanctimonious post. i presume your crusade isn't just focusing on tobacco but all the other things that make this country the supposed sick man of europe.

mcaitchi
13-09-2010, 10:23 PM
I Knew The SMOKING POLL WOULDNT WORK !!

so many anti smokers out there - it was doomed anyway, i realised that before a poll was posted...


LETS HAVE A NEW ONE !!


WHO ALL THINKS WE SHOULD HAVE VANS OUTSIDE THE EAST - SELLING FOOD AND ALCOHOL :thumbsup:....

BET THAT ONE GETS BETTER REULTS ????

maybe not - now we will get all the anti drinkers / smokers joined together eh ??

alan1875
13-09-2010, 11:06 PM
Smoking poll...... Hahahahaha.

Childish I know...... P.s. I know it's the wrong spelling

wee 162
13-09-2010, 11:53 PM
Yes ive read it and have read it again.

Nope still dont see what your trying to say. If you are saying that you were in your seat 30 minutes after arriving at easter road thats fair enough. BUT im quite sure that only the last 5 minutes of those 30 was the time where you couldnt smoke.
NO?
On Saturday there yes. At half 2 the next time? I've no idea how long it will take to get in at that point. Who knows, Hibs might go absolutely mental and open more than 4 turnstiles for the people trying to give them 22 quid...

JE89
14-09-2010, 12:38 AM
But you'd be happy to sit through the first half with them beside you? Hypocrite! :greengrin

Nah, I smell them out first half and give them daggers for 45 mins. :greengrin


But surely at the moment that means you don't want to sit next to anyone who's been to the bog for a pish as well as anyone who's been there for a fag?!?

I don't know anyone that goes to the toilet coming back smelling of pish. Folk that go for a smoke, come back and stink, then proceed to shout for 45 minutes and the smell is rank.


That's an interesting view point. Do you have any family members/friends that smoke? If no fair enough, end of question.

If you do, do you ever socialise with them, say in the pub? If you do, do you not sit beside them for the rest of the night efter they have nipped out for their 1st fag because they'll stink of stale smoke when they come back in.

To be honest, nobody in my family smokes and the mates I would go to the pub or socialise with, barely any of them smoke. There are a few 'social smokers' who'll smoke when we are in nightclubs and return reeking of it but by that time I'm usually drunk and won't notice/care. I just don't see why people should have to put up with the smell when trying to enjoy watching their team.

As for the folk who have said - "do you want the toilets to smell of smoke?" Is completely ridiculous. Breaking the law in order to feed a habit, just as bad as junkies :greengrin:wink:

MSK
14-09-2010, 04:17 AM
The guy probably didn't express his point of view particularly well but I agree entirely with the sentiment in his post.

I would rather not sit next to someone who is stinking of cigarette smoke for 45 minutes either.

The way I see it is, I know that smoking will never be banned but the health of this nation is so bad, I believe that anything that restricts the opportunities that people have to smoke is a good thing in my book.Ive heard it all now ..folk now complaining about folk sitting beside them who are stinking of smoke !!! :faf::faf:

Nurse please put me oot ma misery..i cannae take this anymore !!!!!! :faf:

Saorsa
14-09-2010, 05:50 AM
To be honest, nobody in my family smokes and the mates I would go to the pub or socialise with, barely any of them smoke. There are a few 'social smokers' who'll smoke when we are in nightclubs and return reeking of it but by that time I'm usually drunk and won't notice/care. I just don't see why people should have to put up with the smell when trying to enjoy watching their team.

As for the folk who have said - "do you want the toilets to smell of smoke?" Is completely ridiculous. Breaking the law in order to feed a habit, just as bad as junkies :greengrin:wink:Go tae the fitba drunk :greengrin The way we're playing at the moment :bitchy: :grr: you may find it helps :greengrin

For the record I'm a non-smoker who used tae be a smoker but gave up some time ago.

I do actually agree with your point about the bogs, as somebody who has given up I have nae wish tae now choke on other folks fag smoke. I'm all in favour of the club trying tae accommodate the smokers outside but if it disnae happen and folk persist in smoking in the bogs I would be equally in favour of the club taking action against that. In there it does affect other people, apart from that it's against the law and could get the club in tae trouble

MUPPET
14-09-2010, 06:38 AM
Bunch of sad _ i am a smoker from the west stand and quite frankly think your all pathetic. It is easy to go through the match without a fag i've been doing it for Five years since I moved from the East and I see many other smokers light up as they leave after 90 minutes. We are not allowed out at half time unless I am mistaken and there are no mobs of angry smokers going about harrassing stewards.

Cannae believe your all going to the toilet to do it instead what about the kids having to breathe in your fumes. If I was in the East and saw that with my kids with me I would report to the first steward/policeman and get you'se all thrown out. Get a life and grow up

iwasthere1972
14-09-2010, 07:10 AM
Bunch of sad - i am a smoker from the west stand and quite frankly think your all pathetic. It is easy to go through the match without a fag i've been doing it for Five years since I moved from the East and I see many other smokers light up as they leave after 90 minutes. We are not allowed out at half time unless I am mistaken and there are no mobs of angry smokers going about harrassing stewards.

Cannae believe your all going to the toilet to do it instead what about the kids having to breathe in your fumes. If I was in the East and saw that with my kids with me I would report to the first steward/policeman and get you'se all thrown out. Get a life and grow up yah .

Muppet. :bye:

bighairyfaeleith
14-09-2010, 07:33 AM
don't see the problem to be honest, if folks want to nip out for a smoke then let them, no doing any harm. In fact I would let folks in the FF and the west do it as well. No the away end though as there second class:greengrin

Hibs need to learn that a lot of brownie points can be earned with fans by doing simple things like this, same goes for showing a lenient attitude to fans standing in certain areas of the ground, same goes for putting real meat in the pies!!

wazoo1875
14-09-2010, 08:25 AM
same goes for putting real meat in the pies!!

The most unbelievable sentence is this whole thread by a considerable distance.
Well done BHFL :greengrin

HibeePaj
14-09-2010, 08:34 AM
Bunch of sad _ i am a smoker from the west stand and quite frankly think your all pathetic. It is easy to go through the match without a fag i've been doing it for Five years since I moved from the East and I see many other smokers light up as they leave after 90 minutes. We are not allowed out at half time unless I am mistaken and there are no mobs of angry smokers going about harrassing stewards.

Cannae believe your all going to the toilet to do it instead what about the kids having to breathe in your fumes. If I was in the East and saw that with my kids with me I would report to the first steward/policeman and get you'se all thrown out. Get a life and grow up


here, here:thumbsup::agree::thumbsup:

StevieC
14-09-2010, 09:08 AM
My mum continues to smoke, but "not when our daughter is there". That actually means she'll put a cigarette out the second before we come in the door, and will nip into another room several times. Net result, the house in general is just as smoky, and we tend to limit the number of visits we make because of it.

Now, you might say I'm being a bit of a tw@t, but my mum, though a 20-a-day smoker drove it into us every day that we should never start, because we had the benefit of knowing better. I still can't get my head round the fact she refuses to give up.

I have exactly the same situation with my mum. End result is that she misses out on quality time with her grandchildren.

Regards the discussion about smoking at Easter Road .. there are smokers that dont give a s**t about how their smoking affects others so ultimately I dont give a s**t about them getting out at half time. And those that smoke in the toilets should be ashamed of themselves.

:rolleyes:

SlickShoes
14-09-2010, 09:15 AM
I have exactly the same situation with my mum. End result is that she misses out on quality time with her grandchildren.

Regards the discussion about smoking at Easter Road .. there are smokers that dont give a s**t about how their smoking affects others so ultimately I dont give a s**t about them getting out at half time. And those that smoke in the toilets should be ashamed of themselves.

:rolleyes:

That sums it up for me.

The assumption going on in this thread that everyone not smoking is "feeding there faces" all the time too is just daft.

This thread shows how divided everyone is and how different we are, you have the understanding smokers, the aggressive smokers, the drinkers, the families, the anti smokers, the aggressive anti smokers and so on.

The bottom line is that people that don't smoke HATE the smell of it, be it fresh or stale its all just as disgusting to us. Think about when you smoked your first fag and nearly choked? thats what its like for non smokers all the time.

Smoking is not allowed in football stadia, thats the bottom line. They could let you out the back of the east but then what about the other stands? what about the mixed south stand?

Letting people out just raises the potential for trouble at the game. The only way they could do it would be to build actual smokers pens on each stand that you cannot get in to from outwith the stadium but ARE located outside and uncovered.

bighairyfaeleith
14-09-2010, 09:54 AM
The most unbelievable sentence is this whole thread by a considerable distance.
Well done BHFL :greengrin

Thankyou:greengrin

Phil MaGlass
14-09-2010, 11:49 AM
Just wondering what the folk living in the houses behind the East think of all the stench from smokers at half time? Houses filled with stink,curtains stinking, having to close all their windaes just because of a fitba match and a bunch o sad ****ers cannae wait 90 minutes for a fag.

bighairyfaeleith
14-09-2010, 11:53 AM
Just wondering what the folk living in the houses behind the East think of all the stench from smokers at half time? Houses filled with stink,curtains stinking, having to close all their windaes just because of a fitba match and a bunch o sad ****ers cannae wait 90 minutes for a fag.

:faf:

Exiled Hibby
14-09-2010, 01:00 PM
happy to let you yellow - fingered smokers out at half time


not so happy to let you back in to sit near me:greengrin

CraigK
14-09-2010, 07:31 PM
Personally i can go for 2 hours without a fag (trying to stop so have currently went two days!), but al they need to do is close the gates at the bottom of the lane and no-one can sneak in. So, yes.

mcaitchi
14-09-2010, 09:33 PM
Personally i can go for 2 hours without a fag (trying to stop so have currently went two days!), but al they need to do is close the gates at the bottom of the lane and no-one can sneak in. So, yes.

Well said, us smokers can be accomodated no problems !! :thumbsup:

And well done with the non smoking !! seriously i mean it, good luck with giving up the fags :agree: ...


I gave up going to the pub because of the smoking ban - and having to stand outside in the rain like a LEPER -

And now i CANT even have a puff outside my favorite football ground - and stand outside in the rain like a LEPER -

So its good news and bad news really - im close to giving up both - smoking and my season ticket.... :bye:

I wouldnt be back as a NON SMOKER - i couldnt deal with the stress !!:bitchy:

Last Minute
14-09-2010, 09:41 PM
Just wondering what the folk living in the houses behind the East think of all the stench from smokers at half time? Houses filled with stink,curtains stinking, having to close all their windaes just because of a fitba match and a bunch o sad ****ers cannae wait 90 minutes for a fag.



Get a Grip and a Life for gods sake :bye:

Frogga
14-09-2010, 09:48 PM
I reckon big Rod is too scared that all the smoking would distract said smokers from the half-time catering. Time is money eh. :wink:

Last Minute
14-09-2010, 09:51 PM
Taken from the bounce.


was at Reading v Palace at the weekend. At half time the stewards opened the gates so people could go out and have a smoke. Asked to see people's tickets before allowing them to get back to their seats. There was no trouble at all so i'm sure Hibs could do something like this.

mcaitchi
14-09-2010, 10:07 PM
I reckon big Rod is too scared that all the smoking would distract said smokers from the half-time catering. Time is money eh. :wink:

Had a smoke, and still had my steak pie and a pee... nice toilets btw ..

and was back in my seat before kick off !!! :thumbsup:

is that not allowed anymore !!!!!! :boo hoo:

Reckon if they ban smoking altogether - hibs will be 4 season tickets and 4 pies and 2 cokes - Down a game !!!! thats just from my family - who sit together !!

the atmosphere - has been getting slowly strangled for years !!! now the police have the likes of G4S - to help do it for them !!!

Sir David Gray
14-09-2010, 11:13 PM
isnt the nation lucky to have such paragons of virtue as yourself looking out for the health and welfare of those whom you don't think should have the freedom of choice.

i salute your piety :bitchy:

what a patronising and quite frankly sanctimonious post. i presume your crusade isn't just focusing on tobacco but all the other things that make this country the supposed sick man of europe.

No, it's not just focussed on tobacco, actually. I would quite happily see certain types of alcohol, that are over a certain %, being banned from British pubs, clubs and supermarkets and I don't think food companies should be allowed to produce food that is absolutely packed with saturated fat either.

As for having the "freedom of choice" that you speak of, sometimes when things are as bad as they are in Scotland right now, harsh measures have to be brought in for the good of the nation. I don't have any figures to hand but I'm quite sure that the various "freedoms of choice" that you refer to, such as smoking, heavy drinking and excessive consumption of junk food all result in a massive burden being placed upon the NHS.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with my post to be honest. I think my view will be shared by quite a large number of non-smokers. As you are obviously a smoker, it's hardly a surprise that you disagree with me.

As I say, I am well aware that smoking will never be banned, it brings in too much revenue for the Government for them to even consider a ban but if it was up to me, I would ban smoking. In my opinion, it is a disgusting habit that has no good side to it whatsoever. At least with alcohol, there is the social part to "going out for a few pints".

All smoking seems to result in is heart disease, severe damage to the lungs and various types of cancer. One of the best laws that has ever been passed by the Scottish Government was the ban on smoking in public places, absolutely fantastic law.

Hibs On Tour
15-09-2010, 01:06 AM
Naw. There may be many things that different people would want to do but can't because of one rule or another. Guess what? Man up and take it on the chin instead of acting like spoilt wee kids and sneaking into the bogs to light up at half time.

I might want to have a drink come half-time [some of the performances maybe sooner!] - I can't. I have to live with it. I might want to shout something at opposing players/fans that someone next to me takes offence to. If I do, I'll get huckled by the stewards/OB. Again, might not like it but have to live with it.

What next? Needle racks just in case any junkies in our support cannae wait until full-time for their next bang of smack? Wee shelves in case you fancy a toot of Coke?

Its 2 hours. Its *not* a long time.

FWIW I didn't agree with the smoking ban in the first place in boozers but can see the merit in it now. No smoking in stadiums came about however for entirely different reasons [Bradford was it not?] and although I realise that we don't have a wee wooden stand any more, it kinda has to be an all or nothing thing really...

Jack
15-09-2010, 06:55 AM
No, it's not just focussed on tobacco, actually. I would quite happily see certain types of alcohol, that are over a certain %, being banned from British pubs, clubs and supermarkets and I don't think food companies should be allowed to produce food that is absolutely packed with saturated fat either.

As for having the "freedom of choice" that you speak of, sometimes when things are as bad as they are in Scotland right now, harsh measures have to be brought in for the good of the nation. I don't have any figures to hand but I'm quite sure that the various "freedoms of choice" that you refer to, such as smoking, heavy drinking and excessive consumption of junk food all result in a massive burden being placed upon the NHS.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with my post to be honest. I think my view will be shared by quite a large number of non-smokers. As you are obviously a smoker, it's hardly a surprise that you disagree with me.

As I say, I am well aware that smoking will never be banned, it brings in too much revenue for the Government for them to even consider a ban but if it was up to me, I would ban smoking. In my opinion, it is a disgusting habit that has no good side to it whatsoever. At least with alcohol, there is the social part to "going out for a few pints".

All smoking seems to result in is heart disease, severe damage to the lungs and various types of cancer. One of the best laws that has ever been passed by the Scottish Government was the ban on smoking in public places, absolutely fantastic law.

What a wonderfully superior person you are despite your views being backed up with nothing more than your thoughts and opinions.

How much is ‘too much revenue’? Too much in comparison with what? How much is a ‘massive burden’? Is it massive, for example, in comparison to the amount of drugs that are prescribed and paid for by the State but not used by patients? Is it massive in comparison the cost to the NHS of drinking. How many dead smokers would we need to buy a Trident missle?

“Harsh measures need to be brought in for the good of the nation” in answer to sick man of Europe. Go get the figures to hand, what you'll find is you're out of date. Scotland lost the sick man of Europe tag a couple of years ago – source: the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. If you do try and find any figures to back your claims try taking Strathclyde out the all Scotland figures and let us know where Scotland sits then in the league of healthy nations then.

Your post is full of emotive, unsubstantiated or out of date claims, the same sort of writing usually used by lower end of the media to sensationalise weak arguments.

Disc O'Dave
15-09-2010, 08:04 AM
So all these "draconian" measures are working then.......:duck:

degenerated
15-09-2010, 08:41 AM
No, it's not just focussed on tobacco, actually. I would quite happily see certain types of alcohol, that are over a certain %, being banned from British pubs, clubs and supermarkets and I don't think food companies should be allowed to produce food that is absolutely packed with saturated fat either.

As for having the "freedom of choice" that you speak of, sometimes when things are as bad as they are in Scotland right now, harsh measures have to be brought in for the good of the nation. I don't have any figures to hand but I'm quite sure that the various "freedoms of choice" that you refer to, such as smoking, heavy drinking and excessive consumption of junk food all result in a massive burden being placed upon the NHS.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with my post to be honest. I think my view will be shared by quite a large number of non-smokers. As you are obviously a smoker, it's hardly a surprise that you disagree with me.

As I say, I am well aware that smoking will never be banned, it brings in too much revenue for the Government for them to even consider a ban but if it was up to me, I would ban smoking. In my opinion, it is a disgusting habit that has no good side to it whatsoever. At least with alcohol, there is the social part to "going out for a few pints".

All smoking seems to result in is heart disease, severe damage to the lungs and various types of cancer. One of the best laws that has ever been passed by the Scottish Government was the ban on smoking in public places, absolutely fantastic law.

Never mind the Nanny State…………..

I may have joked on a previous thread about sanctimonious, arrogant fascists but you really have demonstrated that you are exactly that.

your post says more about you than it does about smoking, you’ve potentially moved the debate off the main forum past the Holy Ground and heading towards 1930’s central europe. Perhaps it would have held more credence had you titled it “my struggle”

I doubt that many people not just non smokers would hold similar views to yours.

On one hand you tell us that you would ban it due to the massive burden it places on the NHS but on the other you tell us it’s too much of a money spinner to ban. If you want your views to be taken seriously you would be better placed putting facts rather than just emotive and empty rhetoric.

Perhaps you could have looked into the net cost of smoking on the countries coffers, but I suspect that wouldn’t have provided you with the answers you wanted when you discovered that although the British Heart Foundation calculate the cost to be £5 billion a year, the amount of revenue raised is £8.8 billion on direct taxation and over £1.8 billion a year in VAT.

I agree with you on the smoking ban. It’s a positive thing and even though statistics at the time showed 68% of pub regulars as smokers no-one can really argue any different, well except maybe the owners and workers in the near 7000 pubs that have closed their doors since the ban came in.

As I have said before I don’t mind standing outside for a smoke as and when I choose to do so, if pubs are full of people like you it’s probably a more pleasant place to be anyway.

I look forward to your next post which will probably advocate the benefits of work camps for smokers, those that drink alcohol over a % decreed by yourself and anyone who has ever eaten a pie – but as usual without any actual facts to back it up.

Yours,

Unter Mensch

Phil MaGlass
15-09-2010, 09:37 AM
Get a Grip and a Life for gods sake :bye:

Its awrite I was only postin that to annoy folk I wasnt being serious, Im pretty good at that.:greengrin

1two
15-09-2010, 12:21 PM
No, it's not just focussed on tobacco, actually. I would quite happily see certain types of alcohol, that are over a certain %, being banned from British pubs, clubs and supermarkets and I don't think food companies should be allowed to produce food that is absolutely packed with saturated fat either.

As for having the "freedom of choice" that you speak of, sometimes when things are as bad as they are in Scotland right now, harsh measures have to be brought in for the good of the nation. I don't have any figures to hand but I'm quite sure that the various "freedoms of choice" that you refer to, such as smoking, heavy drinking and excessive consumption of junk food all result in a massive burden being placed upon the NHS.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with my post to be honest. I think my view will be shared by quite a large number of non-smokers. As you are obviously a smoker, it's hardly a surprise that you disagree with me.

As I say, I am well aware that smoking will never be banned, it brings in too much revenue for the Government for them to even consider a ban but if it was up to me, I would ban smoking. In my opinion, it is a disgusting habit that has no good side to it whatsoever. At least with alcohol, there is the social part to "going out for a few pints".

All smoking seems to result in is heart disease, severe damage to the lungs and various types of cancer. One of the best laws that has ever been passed by the Scottish Government was the ban on smoking in public places, absolutely fantastic law.

I agree with your point on smoking, it's a selfish, disguting habit and should be banned, for the reason you have stated above and for the direct health risk it has to others!

Alcohol is a different matter though. It doesn't hold the direct health risks to others smoking has. A sensible drinker can go about his drinking (regardless of %) without harming others health. A smoker can't!

bawheid
15-09-2010, 12:56 PM
What a wonderfully superior person you are despite your views being backed up with nothing more than your thoughts and opinions.

How much is ‘too much revenue’? Too much in comparison with what? How much is a ‘massive burden’? Is it massive, for example, in comparison to the amount of drugs that are prescribed and paid for by the State but not used by patients? Is it massive in comparison the cost to the NHS of drinking. How many dead smokers would we need to buy a Trident missle?

“Harsh measures need to be brought in for the good of the nation” in answer to sick man of Europe. Go get the figures to hand, what you'll find is you're out of date. Scotland lost the sick man of Europe tag a couple of years ago – source: the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. If you do try and find any figures to back your claims try taking Strathclyde out the all Scotland figures and let us know where Scotland sits then in the league of healthy nations then.

Your post is full of emotive, unsubstantiated or out of date claims, the same sort of writing usually used by lower end of the media to sensationalise weak arguments.


Never mind the Nanny State…………..

I may have joked on a previous thread about sanctimonious, arrogant fascists but you really have demonstrated that you are exactly that.

your post says more about you than it does about smoking, you’ve potentially moved the debate off the main forum past the Holy Ground and heading towards 1930’s central europe. Perhaps it would have held more credence had you titled it “my struggle”

I doubt that many people not just non smokers would hold similar views to yours.

On one hand you tell us that you would ban it due to the massive burden it places on the NHS but on the other you tell us it’s too much of a money spinner to ban. If you want your views to be taken seriously you would be better placed putting facts rather than just emotive and empty rhetoric.

Perhaps you could have looked into the net cost of smoking on the countries coffers, but I suspect that wouldn’t have provided you with the answers you wanted when you discovered that although the British Heart Foundation calculate the cost to be £5 billion a year, the amount of revenue raised is £8.8 billion on direct taxation and over £1.8 billion a year in VAT.

I agree with you on the smoking ban. It’s a positive thing and even though statistics at the time showed 68% of pub regulars as smokers no-one can really argue any different, well except maybe the owners and workers in the near 7000 pubs that have closed their doors since the ban came in.

As I have said before I don’t mind standing outside for a smoke as and when I choose to do so, if pubs are full of people like you it’s probably a more pleasant place to be anyway.

I look forward to your next post which will probably advocate the benefits of work camps for smokers, those that drink alcohol over a % decreed by yourself and anyone who has ever eaten a pie – but as usual without any actual facts to back it up.

Yours,

Unter Mensch

Both :top marks

Thought I'd stumbled onto the Daily Mail's comments pages when I read FH's posts.

bawheid
15-09-2010, 12:58 PM
Alcohol is a different matter though. It doesn't hold the direct health risks to others smoking has. A sensible drinker can go about his drinking (regardless of %) without harming others health. A smoker can't!

Eh? All those sensible drinkers I see up town on a Friday night you mean? The one's stabbing and battering each other? Aye, no health risk at all from those types.

NAE NOOKIE
15-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Yes. Obviously

1two
15-09-2010, 07:02 PM
Eh? All those sensible drinkers I see up town on a Friday night you mean? The one's stabbing and battering each other? Aye, no health risk at all from those types.

No they would be known as irresponsible drinkers!

bawheid
16-09-2010, 07:13 AM
No they would be known as irresponsible drinkers!

So you would accept that drink can cause harm to the health of others too? And surely you would accept that there are therefore "responsible" smokers who wouldn't light up in toilets, smoke in kids faces and generally be the devil incarnate?

StevieC
16-09-2010, 07:42 AM
So you would accept that drink can cause harm to the health of others too?

I would say it's the drunk causing the harm, not the drink.

:hmmm:

bawheid
16-09-2010, 07:46 AM
I would say it's the drunk causing the harm, not the drink.

:hmmm:

How did the drunk get drunk?

1two
16-09-2010, 08:00 AM
So you would accept that drink can cause harm to the health of others too? And surely you would accept that there are therefore "responsible" smokers who wouldn't light up in toilets, smoke in kids faces and generally be the devil incarnate?

No, I accept irresponsible drinkers can and have caused harm to others, but thats then a criminal matter. As should those puffing smoke into the air for me and others to inhale, whether thats in a pub, at the outside door of a pub, in a toilet or anywhere you want it to be its still selfish!

degenerated
16-09-2010, 08:13 AM
No, I accept irresponsible drinkers can and have caused harm to others, but thats then a criminal matter. As should those puffing smoke into the air for me and others to inhale, whether thats in a pub, at the outside door of a pub, in a toilet or anywhere you want it to be its still selfish!

Anywhere outside? Away and bile yer heid. I'd suggest its you that's selfish.

I assume you have the same issues with car drivers and their pollutants

bawheid
16-09-2010, 08:15 AM
No, I accept irresponsible drinkers can and have caused harm to others, but thats then a criminal matter. As should those puffing smoke into the air for me and others to inhale, whether thats in a pub, at the outside door of a pub, in a toilet or anywhere you want it to be its still selfish!

But the solution proposed by a few on this thead seems to be to ban smoking altogether.

So you wouldn't ban alcohol because of the selfish actions of a few drunks, but you would ban smoking because of the selfish actions of a few smokers?

StevieC
16-09-2010, 09:01 AM
How did the drunk get drunk?

Methylated Spirits? :dunno:

The point being that it's not the drink, it's the person.


But the solution proposed by a few on this thead seems to be to ban smoking altogether.

So you wouldn't ban alcohol because of the selfish actions of a few drunks, but you would ban smoking because of the selfish actions of a few smokers?

I think most are saying they dont want to be affected by smoke, in whatever shape or form, rather than asking for a total ban. Although, there is no need to introduce a ban because it's already banned by law. The problem is the enforcement of the ban. IMO anyone caught smoking in the toilet should face a fine and a criminal charge (in the same way a violent drunk would) rather than a petty threat of eviction.

Smoking affects others irrespective of how careful or selfish the smoker is. There's no comparison to drink in this argument as it's only when it reaches the level of a drunk causing actual physical or mental harm that it affects in the same way as smoking.

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 09:12 AM
I assume you have the same issues with car drivers and their pollutants

I do have the same issues.

I'd rather not breathe in the fumes from vehicles, but, until the oil industry changes its ways, I don't see any alternative. Do you?

There's not really a choice when it comes to exhaust pollutants. Yes, we could use our cars less, but their use couldn't be stopped.

Smoking is a personal choice. It could be stopped. There is an alternative to having to breathe in other people's smoke.

The comparison between exhaust fumes and cigarette smoke is spurious.

Edit: Stevie C's point is perfectly right.

A person could drink in an enclosed space for 3 hours and the other occupants would not be harmed in any way.

That can't be said about someone smoking cigarettes.

bawheid
16-09-2010, 09:15 AM
Methylated Spirits? :dunno:

The point being that it's not the drink, it's the person.


And my point being that when someone breaks the law and smokes in the toilet it's not the smoke, it's the person.

The comparison would be - guy gets totally steaming before the game. Goes to the toilet at half time, thinks someone's looking at him funny and so batters him in front of his kid. Should we ban everyone from drinking?



I think most are saying they dont want to be affected by smoke, in whatever shape or form, rather than asking for a total ban. Although, there is no need to introduce a ban because it's already banned by law. The problem is the enforcement of the ban. IMO anyone caught smoking in the toilet should face a fine and a criminal charge (in the same way a violent drunk would) rather than a petty threat of eviction.


Totally agree with you - smoking in the toilets is just rank - but it would be unfair to tar all smokers with the same brush.

Some seem to be taking it further than that though. FalkirkHibee for one seems to be on a personal mission to try and save smokers from themselves for the good of the nation. What a wonderful citizen.

I wonder when he's going to sort out the traffic in Falkirk town centre which adversely affects the lungs of people in a far greater way than people smoking outside?



Smoking affects others irrespective of how careful or selfish the smoker is. There's no comparison to drink in this argument as it's only when it reaches the level of a drunk causing actual physical or mental harm that it affects in the same way as smoking.

I think the comparison with drink is perfectly valid. This country is littered with cases of physical and mental harm caused by alcohol. It happens every day.

bawheid
16-09-2010, 09:17 AM
There is an alternative to having to breathe in other people's smoke.


Following the ban on smoking in public places you shouldn't have to. If you do someone is breaking the law.

1two
16-09-2010, 09:25 AM
Following the ban on smoking in public places you shouldn't have to. If you do someone is breaking the law.

Yep
We wouldn't have to if they banned smoking In the street!

Disc O'Dave
16-09-2010, 09:37 AM
[QUOTE=bawheid;2577792]
The comparison would be - guy gets totally steaming before the game. Goes to the toilet at half time, thinks someone's looking at him funny and so batters him in front of his kid. Should we ban everyone from drinking?



[QUOTE]

But there are already rules in place to stop that happening. If he was steaming before the game, he should never have been admitted to the ground. The law also states that people who have had too much to drink shouldn't be served any more alcohol.

So in effect, rules against excessive drinking already exist, they are just very poorly observed.....mainly because publicans would be mad to turn away trade in already difficult times.

Nothing to stop him getting bladdered in his own home under the current laws, mind you...unless they start restricting how much alcohol you can buy in the one go from the supermarket.

bawheid
16-09-2010, 09:55 AM
But there are already rules in place to stop that happening. If he was steaming before the game, he should never have been admitted to the ground. The law also states that people who have had too much to drink shouldn't be served any more alcohol.

So in effect, rules against excessive drinking already exist, they are just very poorly observed.....mainly because publicans would be mad to turn away trade in already difficult times.

Nothing to stop him getting bladdered in his own home under the current laws, mind you...unless they start restricting how much alcohol you can buy in the one go from the supermarket.

Exactly. And there are rules against smoking in public places, e.g. Easter Road toilets. We're not disagreeing here.

What I am against is the people who think they're on some sort of moral crusade and want to ban smoking altogether. If smokers want to slowly kill themselves, that's up to them. Just as if heavy drinkers want to slowly kill themselves, that's up to them. When they start harming others, is when the law should intervene.

Phil MaGlass
16-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Dont know if this has been posted

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/20100916/stadium-smoking-policy_2262950_2155480

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 10:11 AM
Exactly. And there are rules against smoking in public places, e.g. Easter Road toilets. We're not disagreeing here.

What I am against is the people who think they're on some sort of moral crusade and want to ban smoking altogether. If smokers want to slowly kill themselves, that's up to them. Just as if heavy drinkers want to slowly kill themselves, that's up to them. When they start harming others, is when the law should intervene.

It's temptng to agree with those sentiments, but I do think society has a role in helping people help themselves.

If not for purely human/moral reasons, then on financial grounds.

The cost to the taxpayer via the NHS of folk drinking and smoking to excess is collossal.

We could pay for state visits for the Pope all his cardinals and still have change to offer the same hospitality to the various grand masters of the orange lodge, many times every year.

Having said that, as long as I don't have to breathe, or smell, other people's smoke, I'm not going to force my political views on any individual.

bawheid
16-09-2010, 10:13 AM
It's temptng to agree with those sentiments, but I do think society has a role in helping people help themselves.

If not for purely human/moral reasons, then on financial grounds.

The cost to the taxpayer via the NHS of folk drinking and smoking to excess is collossal.

We could pay for state visits for the Pope all his cardinals and still have change to offer the same hospitality to the various grand masters of the orange lodge, many times every year.

Having said that, as long as I don't have to breathe, or smell, other people's smoke, I'm not going to force my political views on any individual.

That's true. But it's also been proven that the tax revenue provided by drinkers and smokers more than makes up the defecit carried by the NHS for treating them.

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 10:16 AM
That's true. But it's also been proven that the tax revenue provided by drinkers and smokers more than makes up the defecit carried by the NHS for treating them.

I didn't think that was the case, I'll take your word for it.

In that case, moral/ethical and human reasons will have to suffice!

bawheid
16-09-2010, 10:17 AM
I didn't think that was the case.

I can't be arsed looking it up. I'll maybe have a look later. :greengrin

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 10:21 AM
I can't be arsed looking it up. I'll maybe have a look later. :greengrin

Don't worry, I'm happy to believe you.

I still don't think it's right that we allow folk to kill themselves provided we make a profit!

Thank goodness Rod Petrie isn't in charge of that aspect of our lives! :greengrin

degenerated
16-09-2010, 10:23 AM
I didn't think that was the case, I'll take your word for it.

In that case, moral/ethical and human reasons will have to suffice!

The cost in 2009 as stated by British heart foundation as a result of smoking was 5 billion, direct tax on tobacco was 8.8 billion with vat at 1.8 billion.

basehibby
16-09-2010, 10:32 AM
I do have the same issues.

I'd rather not breathe in the fumes from vehicles, but, until the oil industry changes its ways, I don't see any alternative. Do you?

There's not really a choice when it comes to exhaust pollutants. Yes, we could use our cars less, but their use couldn't be stopped.

Smoking is a personal choice. It could be stopped. There is an alternative to having to breathe in other people's smoke.

The comparison between exhaust fumes and cigarette smoke is spurious.

Edit: Stevie C's point is perfectly right.

A person could drink in an enclosed space for 3 hours and the other occupants would not be harmed in any way.

That can't be said about someone smoking cigarettes.

re the bit in bold - what nonsense!

The comparison is perfectly valid as car exhausts etc. have a lot more potential to harm health than people smoking fags in the open air - as are bonfires and fireworks to pick another example. So would you say it would be reasonable to ban Guy Faukes night celebrations upon the flimsy pretext that there's a one in a billion chance of someone catching lung cancer?

The health NAZIs spouting nonsense about having their health harmed by one tiny whiff of tobacco smoke need to get a life. There was a fair and reasonable point to be addressed regarding smoking indoors in public places - and it's been addressed in this country. Some smokers in the East are bypassing the ban by having a sneaky fag in the bogs - something which understandably gets up many people's noses.

So - someone suggests a solution to keep everyone happy - let the smokers out for their fag at HT. But still peolpe object - what possible reason could they have apart from being Health Nazi control freaks?

Last Minute
16-09-2010, 10:57 AM
That will be that then.


http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/20100916/stadium-smoking-policy_2262950_2155480


Back to the toilets:wink:

Last Minute
16-09-2010, 10:58 AM
That will be that then.


http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/20100916/stadium-smoking-policy_2262950_2155480


Back to the toilets:wink:


Just for a pee :greengrin

degenerated
16-09-2010, 11:15 AM
That will be that then.


http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/news/20100916/stadium-smoking-policy_2262950_2155480


Back to the toilets:wink:

i assume that this will also apply to the corporate punters in the west as well

StevieC
16-09-2010, 11:22 AM
And my point being that when someone breaks the law and smokes in the toilet it's not the smoke, it's the person.

Yes, the actual breaking of the law is down to the individual but the harmful affects are not. You stick 2 people in a room with a pint of lager in front of them and neither is going to be adversly affected health wise. You have the same situation with a lit cigarette and it does become a health issue.

Drink directly affects the person using it, whether that be liver failure or violent outbursts, it does not affect those around. Cigarettes affect both those that smoke them and those around them.


I think the comparison with drink is perfectly valid. This country is littered with cases of physical and mental harm caused by alcohol. It happens every day.

There is no way you can compare the two (see above). Alcohol primarily affects the person that consumes it. Any harm caused on the back of this is secondary to the affects of the alcohol itself. Cigarettes primarily affect the smoker AND those around. There will also be secondary effects from cigarettes, such as behavioural changes due to nicotine craving, but the primary issues are completely different.

StevieC
16-09-2010, 11:30 AM
The health NAZIs spouting nonsense about having their health harmed by one tiny whiff of tobacco smoke need to get a life.

I thought that was the whole point of their argument though?

:dunno:

Jack
16-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Yes, the actual breaking of the law is down to the individual but the harmful affects are not. You stick 2 people in a room with a pint of lager in front of them and neither is going to be adversly affected health wise. You have the same situation with a lit cigarette and it does become a health issue.

Drink directly affects the person using it, whether that be liver failure or violent outbursts, it does not affect those around. Cigarettes affect both those that smoke them and those around them.



There is no way you can compare the two (see above). Alcohol primarily affects the person that consumes it. Any harm caused on the back of this is secondary to the affects of the alcohol itself. Cigarettes primarily affect the smoker AND those around. There will also be secondary effects from cigarettes, such as behavioural changes due to nicotine craving, but the primary issues are completely different.

Tell that to anyone who lives with an alcoholic.

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 11:39 AM
re the bit in bold - what nonsense!



It's spurious because there is little or nothing that can be done about controlling exhaust pollution.





The health NAZIs spouting nonsense about having their health harmed by one tiny whiff of tobacco smoke need to get a life. There was a fair and reasonable point to be addressed regarding smoking indoors in public places - and it's been addressed in this country. Some smokers in the East are bypassing the ban by having a sneaky fag in the bogs - something which understandably gets up many people's noses.

So - someone suggests a solution to keep everyone happy - let the smokers out for their fag at HT. But still peolpe object - what possible reason could they have apart from being Health Nazi control freaks?

I agree with your general sentiments although I don't think your pejorative language adds anything to your argument.

People are entitled to their views, whether you think they're excessive or not.

Oh, and people are entitled to be control freaks too.

StevieC
16-09-2010, 11:39 AM
Tell that to anyone who lives with an alcoholic.

Not disputing the secondary effects of alcohol, but it is a secondary effect though from the alcohol consumption rather than a primary one, as with smoking.

In the context of this argument, the ability to have a pint at half time is NOT going to affect the health of others around. The same cannot be said for smoking within the stadium.

And I'm aware that smoking also has lots of secondary effects outwith the primary health hazards.

1two
16-09-2010, 11:56 AM
re the bit in bold - what nonsense!

The comparison is perfectly valid as car exhausts etc. have a lot more potential to harm health than people smoking fags in the open air - as are bonfires and fireworks to pick another example. So would you say it would be reasonable to ban Guy Faukes night celebrations upon the flimsy pretext that there's a one in a billion chance of someone catching lung cancer?

The health NAZIs spouting nonsense about having their health harmed by one tiny whiff of tobacco smoke need to get a life. There was a fair and reasonable point to be addressed regarding smoking indoors in public places - and it's been addressed in this country. Some smokers in the East are bypassing the ban by having a sneaky fag in the bogs - something which understandably gets up many people's noses.

So - someone suggests a solution to keep everyone happy - let the smokers out for their fag at HT. But still peolpe object - what possible reason could they have apart from being Health Nazi control freaks?

In what way does being concerned about my own health and the health of others make me a health Nazi?

Disc O'Dave
16-09-2010, 12:04 PM
In what way does being concerned about my own health and the health of others make me a health Nazi?

Maybe if you stop someone from jumping off a bridge, you could be accused of being in the Khmer Rouge :dunno:

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 12:05 PM
Maybe if you stop someone from jumping off a bridge, you could be accused of being in the Khmer Rouge :dunno:

Now now. I think that's a case of the Pol Pot calling the kettle black.

bawheid
16-09-2010, 12:07 PM
Yes, the actual breaking of the law is down to the individual but the harmful affects are not. You stick 2 people in a room with a pint of lager in front of them and neither is going to be adversly affected health wise. You have the same situation with a lit cigarette and it does become a health issue.

Drink directly affects the person using it, whether that be liver failure or violent outbursts, it does not affect those around. Cigarettes affect both those that smoke them and those around them.



There is no way you can compare the two (see above). Alcohol primarily affects the person that consumes it. Any harm caused on the back of this is secondary to the affects of the alcohol itself. Cigarettes primarily affect the smoker AND those around. There will also be secondary effects from cigarettes, such as behavioural changes due to nicotine craving, but the primary issues are completely different.

I think we're debating different points here.

I joined this debate when some of the "health Nazis" started advocating a complete ban on smoking. I have no issue with a ban on smoking in public places. People who light up in a toilet occupied by kids / non-smokers / anyone are fair game for abuse.

So, providing everyone sticks to the law there should be no "primary health effects" for non-smokers. Would you agree?

My point is, why should smoking be banned outright because of a few smokers who might choose to break the law, yet alcohol should not be subject to the same ban despite the untold mysery it causes up and down the country?

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 12:26 PM
I think we're debating different points here.

I joined this debate when some of the "health Nazis" started advocating a complete ban on smoking. I have no issue with a ban on smoking in public places. People who light up in a toilet occupied by kids / non-smokers / anyone are fair game for abuse.

So, providing everyone sticks to the law there should be no "primary health effects" for non-smokers. Would you agree?

My point is, why should smoking be banned outright because of a few smokers who might choose to break the law, yet alcohol should not be subject to the same ban despite the untold mysery it causes up and down the country?

Just for the sake of the debate...

There are many social and health benefits from moderate alcohol use.

There are no such benefits from smoking.

Jack
16-09-2010, 12:27 PM
I think the arguments going on here about what's worse are missing the point, or maybe arguing about the same thing.

What both sides are saying is true; smoking, particularly inconsiderate smoking, and the effects of alcohol can both be just as bad in their own way and there's no good in either.

Both can have a detrimental effect on the primary user; both can have a detrimental effect on those around them; both use up scarce NHS resources, smoking on a drip fed basis, drinking more focused on the weekend evenings.


***************************************

I think the club statement on smoking is draconian. They have shown that opening the East gates at half time is possible and can be easily controlled. They have in the past allowed hospitality smokers their half time puff. Their ‘in common with other SPL clubs’ line therefore doesn’t hold water – its not even in common with what Hibs themselves were doing last week. If they look beyond the SPL there are grounds / stadia with designated smoking areas so its difficult to see this can be as a result of the Scottish smoking ban legislation.

I don’t think the club will lose custom as a direct result but I think combined with other things it will be one more negative that will discourage some among the 3/400 regular smokers from being regular custom.

We know there will be smoking in the toilets in the East – there are regular smokers in the West and FF as it is now. Will non-smokers unwilling to put up with this be put off coming to matches? Those non-smokers from the East will not be used to smoking in the toilets! I suspect however given the statement this will be clamped down on and the toilet smokers in all stands will be even less encouraged to come to games.

Hibs loss / Hibs defeat.

Hibbyradge
16-09-2010, 12:29 PM
I think the arguments going on here about what's worse are missing the point, or maybe arguing about the same thing.

What both sides are saying is true; smoking, particularly inconsiderate smoking, and the effects of alcohol can both be just as bad in their own way and there's no good in either.


See post 154.

bawheid
16-09-2010, 12:43 PM
Just for the sake of the debate...

There are many social and health benefits from moderate alcohol use.

There are no such benefits from smoking.

Agree that there are no health benefits from smoking. The social benefits are less cut and dried IMO. I'm sure many a lasting relationship has begun following a bit of "smirting" outside a bar. :greengrin

But anyway, I'm not talking about those who choose to drink moderately. My comparison was with the idiots who get smashed and then go causing bother. I don't think they are a reason to completely ban alcohol, just like the few idiots who choose to smoke in an enclosed space are not a reason to completely ban tobacco.

degenerated
16-09-2010, 12:51 PM
Just for the sake of the debate...

There are many social and health benefits from moderate alcohol use.

There are no such benefits from smoking.

surely the revenue could be termed as a benefit, no?

anyway this debate has been sidetracked, the point was that, as Jack states, if it is feasible, practical to provide somewhere for those who choose to have a smoke at half time then why not do it, especially if it discourages the anti social smoking that is always and justifiably and area of complaint. win/win


and 1two, please dont spend any of your time worrying about my health. that time could be far better invested worrying about yourself, you never know you might become a better individual for it :greengrin

Jack
16-09-2010, 01:09 PM
See post 154.

My point was about inconsiderate smoking and, I should have said ‘excessive’ alcohol. Both being closer to the extreme/minority than the norm. :agree:

Joe Baker II
16-09-2010, 03:48 PM
Sadly general attitude of club and many supporters (regardless of whether police/stewards/Hibs made final decision) as illustrated by the 2 smoking threads makes me pretty glad I have decided no longer to attend ER regularly after witnessing the stewarding in the South Stand at the end of last season.

Sadly quite clear what a joyless experience new stand is going to be from reading posts describing the incidents here. And reading the reactionary nonsense on smoking/alcohol spounted by some fans scarcely encourages one to attend ER either - and I have never smoked in my life.

And I say this having not even been at ER since new stand open!

blackpoolhibs
16-09-2010, 03:58 PM
i assume that this will also apply to the corporate punters in the west as well

I doubt it. If you pay enough money, the club will let you do what you want within reason, no matter what it says on the back of your ticket. :bitchy:

mcaitchi
16-09-2010, 04:57 PM
Well, we will be going outside at half time for a smoke - and if they dont let us back in - i couldnt give a **** :rolleyes:


And Hibs can wave :bye: - to 4 season ticket holders !!!!!! :agree:

LeithBoozy
16-09-2010, 06:09 PM
You do all realise that the fact remains that Hibs will be doing this to save money, their Insurance will be a lot cheaper because its a total non-smoking area. As an ex smoker myself boys, give it up if you can its a dear game now. :wink:

Hainan Hibs
16-09-2010, 06:13 PM
It does amuse me that smokers can go 8 hours sleeping fine without a fag but being expected to go 90 minutes at a football match without one is outrageous.

1two
16-09-2010, 06:44 PM
and 1two, please dont spend any of your time worrying about my health. that time could be far better invested worrying about yourself, you never know you might become a better individual for it :greengrin

Thanks mr degenerated, just myself and the 16000 other hibbys I need to worry about now :greengrin

1two
16-09-2010, 06:48 PM
What's hibs stance on letting me out at halftime to drink a 70cl of Vodka?

If it's a no then that's a season ticket holder they've lost!

mcaitchi
16-09-2010, 06:51 PM
Thanks mr degenerated, just myself and the 16000 other hibbys I need to worry about now :greengrin

Maybe, you should start a campaign, for hibs to have a SALAD BAR ???

how about some excercise machines - for evryone to stretch the muscles after sitting down for 45 mins / poor old guy in the crowd near me got cramp, and had to stand up and was quite promptly told by a steward to SIT DOWN .... fffffffs

mcaitchi
16-09-2010, 06:57 PM
What's hibs stance on letting me out at halftime to drink a 70cl of Vodka?

If it's a no then that's a season ticket holder they've lost!

How do you accuire the said 70cl - bottle of vodka ???

presumably you must have smuggled it into the stadium before the game and avoided security checks etc !!!!

Plastic bottles / glass bottles - even kids flasks, toddler bottles - are considered to be a projectile weapon - and such illegal in all scottish stadia...

But hey, if you can drink 70cl vodka at half time in just 15mins - :bye:

il take my chances with the cancer sticks...

1two
16-09-2010, 06:58 PM
Maybe, you should start a campaign, for hibs to have a SALAD BAR ???

how about some excercise machines - for evryone to stretch the muscles after sitting down for 45 mins / poor old guy in the crowd near me got cramp, and had to stand up and was quite promptly told by a steward to SIT DOWN .... fffffffs

I know your being sarcastic but you've completely missed the point!

My healths not affected by others eating pies/pizzas, I also enjoy a halftime pie. :greengrin

1two
16-09-2010, 07:01 PM
How do you accuire the said 70cl - bottle of vodka ???

presumably you must have smuggled it into the stadium before the game and avoided security checks etc !!!!

Plastic bottles / glass bottles - even kids flasks, toddler bottles - are considered to be a projectile weapon - and such illegal in all scottish stadia...

But hey, if you can drink 70cl vodka at half time in just 15mins - :bye:

il take my chances with the cancer sticks...

I Think you need one of your cancer sticks now to calm yourself down pal!

mcaitchi
16-09-2010, 07:04 PM
I know your being sarcastic but you've completely missed the point!

My healths not affected by others eating pies/pizzas, I also enjoy a halftime pie. :greengrin


yeah i know, but look back 10/20 years - football was all about smokers and drinkers and mainly working class..

we now see emptying stadiums due to the anti drink and anti smoke campaigns over the years..

yes i know people are choosing to not smoke and drink - but people are also choosing not to eat MEAT !!

How long before your half time pie is - er Fat and salt free !! - then the vegetarians that wont sit next to someone that stinking of meat !!!

then we will have all the pie lovers - demanding to be let out the back at half time so they can eat a pie and enjoy a hot beefy drink ???

Kevvy1875
16-09-2010, 07:26 PM
Don't know about everyone else but I look forward to the day when I can go to ER and sit plugged into an iron lung with my seat freshly sterilised. Hopefully by that time they will have restrictions on how loud people can sing/shout too because those decibel's affect your hearing too.

We should go the whole hogg andjust put up screens between the seats and then we wont even have to look at each other let alone smell each other.

Only one thing worse than snobs and that's wannabe snobs.

No wonder the atmosphere is dead at ER and crowds are dwindling. What fun is there for what should be the target market for Hibs(18-40yrs olds with money). For me going to the football was allways about meeting up with the boys and drinking & smoking then going to the game for a sing song and then more of the former when the game was over. All of these facets are dying and no one cares anymore because its boring with more and more boring people and their 'concerns'. You go to ER a wee bit pissed and then sing a song and people look at you like you have 3 heads or something.


I REALLY miss the old east. REALLY miss it. I would happily knock down that new monolith tomorrow and built the old east again. Im serious btw. Bring back the stinking bogs and the crappy seats and the pillars. At least the folk in there were more interested in the football than their surroundings which is why we are there in the first place.

mcaitchi
16-09-2010, 08:21 PM
Don't know about everyone else but I look forward to the day when I can go to ER and sit plugged into an iron lung with my seat freshly sterilised. Hopefully by that time they will have restrictions on how loud people can sing/shout too because those decibel's affect your hearing too.

We should go the whole hogg andjust put up screens between the seats and then we wont even have to look at each other let alone smell each other.

Only one thing worse than snobs and that's wannabe snobs.

No wonder the atmosphere is dead at ER and crowds are dwindling. What fun is there for what should be the target market for Hibs(18-40yrs olds with money). For me going to the football was allways about meeting up with the boys and drinking & smoking then going to the game for a sing song and then more of the former when the game was over. All of these facets are dying and no one cares anymore because its boring with more and more boring people and their 'concerns'. You go to ER a wee bit pissed and then sing a song and people look at you like you have 3 heads or something.


I REALLY miss the old east. REALLY miss it. I would happily knock down that new monolith tomorrow and built the old east again. Im serious btw. Bring back the stinking bogs and the crappy seats and the pillars. At least the folk in there were more interested in the football than their surroundings which is why we are there in the first place.

:thumbsup:

AND = whats next = i wont SIT next to someone wearing LEATHER !!!!!

StevieC
17-09-2010, 08:08 AM
we now see emptying stadiums due to the anti drink and anti smoke campaigns over the years..

yes i know people are choosing to not smoke and drink - but people are also choosing not to eat MEAT !!

Drink was banned because of football related violence.
Smoking was banned because of the adverse health issues from passive smoking.

I'm yet to see a pizza related injury at the football!

:rolleyes:

bawheid
17-09-2010, 08:09 AM
I'm yet to see a pizza related injury at the football!

:rolleyes:

Was there not an incident during a Manchester United v Arsenal game a few years back? :greengrin

Hibbyradge
17-09-2010, 08:31 AM
Well, we will be going outside at half time for a smoke - and if they dont let us back in - i couldnt give a **** :rolleyes:


And Hibs can wave :bye: - to 4 season ticket holders !!!!!! :agree:

Interesting attitude.

Smoking is far more important to you than watching your team.

Sounds like you've lost control, mate. The cigarette companies are running your life.

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/UNC/UNC311/alarm-bell-clock_~u15973456.jpg

Hibbyradge
17-09-2010, 08:52 AM
h more and more boring people and their 'concerns'.

Another way to describe those people with concerns might be doctors and scientists.

That's the same doctors and scientists we're all hoping have invented a cure for the cancers, heart diseases and other terminal illnesses which we will inevitably contract because of our current, er, interesting lifestyles.

RickyS
17-09-2010, 05:16 PM
Don't know about everyone else but I look forward to the day when I can go to ER and sit plugged into an iron lung with my seat freshly sterilised. Hopefully by that time they will have restrictions on how loud people can sing/shout too because those decibel's affect your hearing too.

We should go the whole hogg andjust put up screens between the seats and then we wont even have to look at each other let alone smell each other.

Only one thing worse than snobs and that's wannabe snobs.

No wonder the atmosphere is dead at ER and crowds are dwindling. What fun is there for what should be the target market for Hibs(18-40yrs olds with money). For me going to the football was allways about meeting up with the boys and drinking & smoking then going to the game for a sing song and then more of the former when the game was over. All of these facets are dying and no one cares anymore because its boring with more and more boring people and their 'concerns'. You go to ER a wee bit pissed and then sing a song and people look at you like you have 3 heads or something.


I REALLY miss the old east. REALLY miss it. I would happily knock down that new monolith tomorrow and built the old east again. Im serious btw. Bring back the stinking bogs and the crappy seats and the pillars. At least the folk in there were more interested in the football than their surroundings which is why we are there in the first place.

I am the same mate, but I am one of those horrible disgusting people who smoke:boo hoo:

hibees707070
17-09-2010, 05:40 PM
It will cause the stewards more time and effort checking every cubicle than it would having 3 or 4 out the back!

RickyS
17-09-2010, 05:52 PM
It will cause the stewards more time and effort checking every cubicle than it would having 3 or 4 out the back!

correct but how often does common sense prevail?

WindyMiller
17-09-2010, 05:59 PM
I can't believe this is still being discussed.
Get f***ing over it, smoking is banned.

From someone who's life has been f***ed by smoking but still sits in the East.

mcaitchi
17-09-2010, 06:30 PM
Interesting attitude.

Smoking is far more important to you than watching your team.

Sounds like you've lost control, mate. The cigarette companies are running your life.

http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/UNC/UNC311/alarm-bell-clock_~u15973456.jpg

What about other things that run my life, like the tax man - dvla and hibs ???

I spend a fortune at easter road every season, 4x season tickets and the pies etc and the strips and clothes and xmas presents etc etc !! a fortune i tell you...

my family all call me possesed with hibs.... :boo hoo:

but, i honestly dont see why i should have to give up anything to support hibs..

if the "fat-cats" can get out for a smoke - why cant us ticket holders ???

They treat us all like cattle, and they dont listen when the cow dares to speak to the farmer ... lol

NAE NOOKIE
17-09-2010, 07:52 PM
**** me .... What a total pain in the backside this thread has become.

What was supposed to be a discussion on the common sense of letting folk oot the back for a fag has turned into another chance for the bloody health nazies to bleat on and on about those nasty smokers.

They got their sodding ban on smoking and still thats not bloody good enough for them.

There aint a smoker out there who doesnt wish they had never started or wish they had the will power to stop, including me.

But tell ya what .... The more I hear you lot pontificating and bleating on and on and on and on about nasty smelly anti social smokers the more I want to sodding well light up.

For those of you who want to save smokers from themselves, why stop there. Heres a list of other activites which kill people for you to put a stop to.

Horse riding
Skiing
Driving
Flying
Sky diving
Swimming
Mountain climbing
Drinking
Crossing the road
Train travel
Space travel
Motor racing
Over eating
Coal mining
Motor cycling

The list is endless.

Oh yeh, nearly forgot ..................... LIFE

mcaitchi
17-09-2010, 08:01 PM
**** me .... What a total pain in the backside this thread has become.

What was supposed to be a discussion on the common sense of letting folk oot the back for a fag has turned into another chance for the bloody health nazies to bleat on and on about those nasty smokers.

They got their sodding ban on smoking and still thats not bloody good enough for them.

There aint a smoker out there who doesnt wish they had never started or wish they had the will power to stop, including me.

But tell ya what .... The more I hear you lot pontificating and bleating on and on and on and on about nasty smelly anti social smokers the more I want to sodding well light up.

For those of you who want to save smokers from themselves, why stop there. Heres a list of other activites which kill people for you to put a stop to.

Horse riding
Skiing
Driving
Flying
Sky diving
Swimming
Mountain climbing
Drinking
Crossing the road
Train travel
Space travel
Motor racing
Over eating
Coal mining
Motor cycling

The list is endless.

Oh yeh, nearly forgot ..................... LIFE


WELL SAID :thumbsup: -

BUT, - All us Smokers were asking for " WAS "

Maybe - a couple of doors open - 3 or 4 Stewards and a piece of Tape !!!

Well it - Worked fine at the rangers game - didnt it ?? :agree:

Jack
18-09-2010, 09:29 AM
The thing about common sense is that it actually isn't that common.

DH1875
18-09-2010, 10:37 AM
WTF? Some people really do have to get a grip. There is nothing to stop the club from delegating a smoking area if such an area is available. Since when was it against the law to smoke at the football :dunno: ? The ban is on enclosed public places, not football stadiums. As has already been mentioned it's possible to smoke at most of the other SPL grounds.
Have none of the non smokers on here stopped to think to themselves that this has only really become an issue since the new stand was built. Why??? Cause it wasn't a ****ing problem before :brickwall.
Now I'm all for the family freindly thing, fans of the future and all that but what about blokes like me who use the game for some me time with the lads. Yes I can go without a fag for 2 hours but what I do struggle with is going the 2 hours after I've had a few beers. The game comes as part of a package and they have already taken away so much of what made the day. If you take away my option to smoke you take away the option of having a few beers before the game and I'm sorry but for me that's prob the last straw.
To be honest if football was like this 20 years ago I'd have never have got into it.

Just to round everything off. Ask yourself this, Were the club breaking the law at the game against the Huns?????


So what's the ****ing problem then :fuming: .

I Love Lamp
18-09-2010, 10:38 AM
YES - it does no harm so why not?

Possible objections: Contravenes the club's overall stance on smoking - well TBH I don't aprove of this preachy holier than thou health nazi policy. Fair enough to ban smoking in enclosed spaces in the interest of public health - or to ban it from the squad of professional athletes on whose performance it could impinge. But to ban your paying customers from enjoying a smoke in circumstances which will harm nobody but (possibly) themselves is a load of sanctimonious drivel IMO.

Extra stewarding costs: Considering how many stewards must be kept busy at HT patrolling the toilets and the stairwells, I don't think this argument holds any water - in fact the stewards' HT workload would probably be reduced and many could be diverted back to more conventional stewarding activities such as harrassing paying customers for standing up and singing at a football match :rolleyes:

I agree with your first point but on stewarding costs I can see the problem. You would still need stewards for the places you mention so that would add expense for the club.

Additionally, the new East is up to the same spec as the other three stands and surely folk in the other three would complain if smokers in the East got a special privilege to which they are not entitled albeit that in the case of the East it would be a concession to a tradition of the old set-up. They would surely argue that the season ticket prices are the same for smokers in all three home stands.

So you're then getting pressure into letting others out of the other stands which could be troublesome too. In addition to the increased stewarding costs (see my point above), there's no obvious place to congregate outside the FF stand and stewarding away fans could, in the case of the Grim 3, be costlier still.

I do sympathise with those who used to smoke outside the old East and feel that they've lost a pleasant part of their matchday routine but ultimately I don't think you can, given the new infrastructure, blame the club for being unwilling to meet the cost of letting one stand smoke but not the others. So it either has to be smokers in all the stands can smoke (which would cost a lot more) or none of them can. A combination of that fairness point and of the considerable extra costs which are often absurd culture of safety imbues upon us would, reluctantly, brings me, reluctantly, down on the 'No' side. I have no problem with smoking or smokers but, in this case, nor can I side with them.

RickyS
18-09-2010, 10:51 AM
WTF? Some people really do have to get a grip. There is nothing to stop the club from delegating a smoking area if such an area is available. Since when was it against the law to smoke at the football :dunno: ? The ban is on enclosed public places, not football stadiums. As has already been mentioned it's possible to smoke at most of the other SPL grounds.
Have none of the non smokers on here stopped to think to themselves that this has only really become an issue since the new stand was built. Why??? Cause it wasn't a ****ing problem before :brickwall.
Now I'm all for the family freindly thing, fans of the future and all that but what about blokes like me who use the game for some me time with the lads. Yes I can go without a fag for 2 hours but what I do struggle with is going the 2 hours after I've had a few beers. The game comes as part of a package and they have already taken away so much of what made the day. If you take away my option to smoke you take away the option of having a few beers before the game and I'm sorry but for me that's prob the last straw.
To be honest if football was like this 20 years ago I'd have never have got into it.

Just to round everything off. Ask yourself this, Were the club breaking the law at the game against the Huns?????


So what's the ****ing problem then :fuming: .


Well said that man:top marks

ginger_rice
18-09-2010, 01:41 PM
Seems to me that Hibs are hamstrung by the law. So perhaps a change in the law is required.

IIRC smoking bans in stadia came in on the back of the Bradford disaster, the change in the law was to stop the like of that happening again in the old wooden deathtraps, like that A Listed pile of crap the Yams have. I'm not sure if the smoking ban in public places also applies but would be surprised if it didn't.

Perhaps if all fooball supporters of all clubs lobbied their respective MSPs for a change in the law to allow clubs, who have suitable modern stands to allow smoking areas. Supporters who do not wish to be in these areas could then be allowed to buy tickets for non smoking areas of the ground, much in the same way as we used to in trains and planes.

I'm an ex-smoker, 25 years and counting, so can empathise with both viewpoints.

DH1875
18-09-2010, 11:41 PM
So how'd it go the day? Did use get out or not. Did anyone try and get a knock back?

McHibby
18-09-2010, 11:52 PM
I was wondering, I haven't seen it anwhere but I might have missed it, are the folk who sit in the other stands allowed to go out for a fag at HT?

DH1875
18-09-2010, 11:52 PM
Seems to me that Hibs are hamstrung by the law. So perhaps a change in the law is required.

IIRC smoking bans in stadia came in on the back of the Bradford disaster

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Like I already said on the post, Did Hibs break the law when we played against the Huns?????

I think not, it's not against the law to smoke at the football and again wasn't even an issue until the new stand was built.

If it's a question of money, give me one of those yellow jackets and I'll do it for ****ing nothing.

Prof. Shaggy
19-09-2010, 12:06 AM
I was wondering, I haven't seen it anwhere but I might have missed it, are the folk who sit in the other stands allowed to go out for a fag at HT?

No we're not.
I used to start to break out in a cold sweat at half time and today I was beginning to feel a little panicky. I knew I'd get out in about an hour and if I just held on till the second half kicked off I'd probably be OK.

mcaitchi
19-09-2010, 12:10 AM
What you talking about, it's not against the law to smoke at the football and again wasn't even an issue until the new stand was built.

apparently it is against the law - to stand / smoke / maybe even sing !!

so its goodbye hibs, X4 season tickets - might come back when they allow the front bit of the east to become STANDING, but we wont be back - until we get treated like the loyal paying customer - we should be treated like ..and not like cattle !!!

we dont want to sit on our erses eating hotdogs and popcorn ffs - this is scotland no effing novia scotia and ice hockey - but u can eat your popcorn and at least you can drink a beer at the ice hockey ????

:bye: hibs

and :bye: yogi

and Big ROD = you can :bye: goodbye to 4 season tickets !!

:boo hoo::boo hoo::boo hoo:

sorry fellow hibees

social cleansing from football strikes again - i wont smoke in the toilets and i wont smoke or drink within the stadium, so i left at half time, and in a way after visiting easter road and the east stand quite regularly sice the mid 1980`s ......

I left easter road for pretty much the last time today...

MSK
19-09-2010, 12:20 AM
apparently it is against the law - to stand / smoke / maybe even sing !!

so its goodbye hibs, X4 season tickets - might come back when they allow the front bit of the east to become STANDING, but we wont be back - until we get treated like the loyal paying customer - we should be treated like ..and not like cattle !!!

we dont want to sit on our erses eating hotdogs and popcorn ffs - this is scotland no effing novia scotia and ice hockey - but u can eat your popcorn and at least you can drink a beer at the ice hockey ????

:bye: hibs

and :bye: yogi

and Big ROD = you can :bye: goodbye to 4 season tickets !!

:boo hoo::boo hoo::boo hoo:

sorry fellow hibees

social cleansing from football strikes again - i wont smoke in the toilets and i wont smoke or drink within the stadium, so i left at half time, and in a way after visiting easter road and the east stand quite regularly sice the mid 1980`s ......

I left easter road for pretty much the last time today...Because you couldnt have a smoke or were not allowed tae stand...?

What a drama Queen !!!.....:violin:

Ive read some guff on these forums throughout the years but yours really take the biscuit ..:faf:

Nah ..i just cant take you serious ..yer at the wind up eh ..?...:greengrin

mcaitchi
19-09-2010, 12:28 AM
Because you couldnt have a smoke or were not allowed tae stand...?

What a drama Queen !!!.....:violin:

Ive read some guff on these forums throughout the years but yours really take the biscuit ..:faf:

Nah ..i just cant take you serious ..yer at the wind up eh ..?...:greengrin



no, seriously not at the wind up - im quite pizzeled of with hibs, this sit down eat your hotdog attitude and when i spend over 2or3 grand a year ???

the taylor report is bollocks - it just recommends seating in stadiums - it dont say nothing about sitting sown !!!!

and p.s. - the atmosphere in the east is pants - we got season tickets who cant sit next to mates cos they are "walk ups" and we cant ****ing sing anymore !!


WHERE IS THE - " EAST STAND TILL I DIE " Attitude Now ????

and - oh yes - im at the wind up ....btw doh

1875godsgift
19-09-2010, 12:34 AM
no, seriously not at the wind up - im quite pizzeled of with hibs, this sit down eat your hotdog attitude and when i spend over 2or3 grand a year ???

the taylor report is bollocks - it just recommends seating in stadiums - it dont say nothing about sitting sown !!!!

and p.s. - the atmosphere in the east is pants - we got season tickets who cant sit next to mates cos they are "walk ups" and we cant ****ing sing anymore !!


WHERE IS THE - " EAST STAND TILL I DIE " Attitude Now ????

and - oh yes - im at the wind up ....btw doh
So your no going back then?
Errrr....
What you going to do with your season tickets ( X4 ) ?

MSK
19-09-2010, 12:42 AM
no, seriously not at the wind up - im quite pizzeled of with hibs, this sit down eat your hotdog attitude and when i spend over 2or3 grand a year ???

the taylor report is bollocks - it just recommends seating in stadiums - it dont say nothing about sitting sown !!!!

and p.s. - the atmosphere in the east is pants - we got season tickets who cant sit next to mates cos they are "walk ups" and we cant ****ing sing anymore !!


WHERE IS THE - " EAST STAND TILL I DIE " Attitude Now ????

and - oh yes - im at the wind up ....btw dohEh..aye ok then ..

mcaitchi
19-09-2010, 12:47 AM
So your no going back then?
Errrr....
What you going to do with your season tickets ( X4 ) ?


seriously, they up for sale !!

il not be back.. x4

MSK
19-09-2010, 12:51 AM
seriously, they up for sale !!

il not be back.. x4For sale ..?..you should be paying someone tae take them off yer hands !! :greengrin

1875godsgift
19-09-2010, 12:54 AM
seriously, they up for sale !!

il not be back.. x4
Aye alright i'll gie ye a tenner a piece.
They better no be beside some winging booing bar stewards but.
:greengrin

mcaitchi
19-09-2010, 01:05 AM
Aye alright i'll gie ye a tenner a piece.
They better no be beside some winging booing bar stewards but.
:greengrin

il keep them, for the big games, 4 x derby tickets are worth a lot more than a tenner lol

maybe il just have a fag in the bogs !! - :wink:

but dont expect me to buy no hotdogs or popcorn :bitchy:

Sir David Gray
21-09-2010, 12:02 AM
What a wonderfully superior person you are despite your views being backed up with nothing more than your thoughts and opinions.

How much is ‘too much revenue’? Too much in comparison with what? How much is a ‘massive burden’? Is it massive, for example, in comparison to the amount of drugs that are prescribed and paid for by the State but not used by patients? Is it massive in comparison the cost to the NHS of drinking. How many dead smokers would we need to buy a Trident missle?

“Harsh measures need to be brought in for the good of the nation” in answer to sick man of Europe. Go get the figures to hand, what you'll find is you're out of date. Scotland lost the sick man of Europe tag a couple of years ago – source: the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. If you do try and find any figures to back your claims try taking Strathclyde out the all Scotland figures and let us know where Scotland sits then in the league of healthy nations then.

Your post is full of emotive, unsubstantiated or out of date claims, the same sort of writing usually used by lower end of the media to sensationalise weak arguments.


Never mind the Nanny State…………..

I may have joked on a previous thread about sanctimonious, arrogant fascists but you really have demonstrated that you are exactly that.

your post says more about you than it does about smoking, you’ve potentially moved the debate off the main forum past the Holy Ground and heading towards 1930’s central europe. Perhaps it would have held more credence had you titled it “my struggle”

I doubt that many people not just non smokers would hold similar views to yours.

On one hand you tell us that you would ban it due to the massive burden it places on the NHS but on the other you tell us it’s too much of a money spinner to ban. If you want your views to be taken seriously you would be better placed putting facts rather than just emotive and empty rhetoric.

Perhaps you could have looked into the net cost of smoking on the countries coffers, but I suspect that wouldn’t have provided you with the answers you wanted when you discovered that although the British Heart Foundation calculate the cost to be £5 billion a year, the amount of revenue raised is £8.8 billion on direct taxation and over £1.8 billion a year in VAT.

I agree with you on the smoking ban. It’s a positive thing and even though statistics at the time showed 68% of pub regulars as smokers no-one can really argue any different, well except maybe the owners and workers in the near 7000 pubs that have closed their doors since the ban came in.

As I have said before I don’t mind standing outside for a smoke as and when I choose to do so, if pubs are full of people like you it’s probably a more pleasant place to be anyway.

I look forward to your next post which will probably advocate the benefits of work camps for smokers, those that drink alcohol over a % decreed by yourself and anyone who has ever eaten a pie – but as usual without any actual facts to back it up.

Yours,

Unter Mensch

Since you're both desperate for me to provide you with some facts and figures, I won't disappoint.

3,000 people die every year from lung cancer, caused by second hand smoke.
An estimated 35,000-62,000 non-smokers die each year from the effects of second hand smoke.
In England and Wales about 34 million days are lost through sickness absence caused by smoking.
In Scotland, the loss of these days costs the economy about £400 million per year.
Around half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their addiction.
Approximately 114,000 smokers in the UK die from smoking related diseases every year.

In case you think I'm making this up, in the interests of proof, I got this information from the ASH website.

I could quite easily find more damning facts and figures on the effects of smoking but I'm sure you know how this is going.

As for Degenerated's claim that Scotland lost its "sick man of Europe" tag about two years ago, this (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/194927-health-report-backs-scotlands-sick-man-of-europe-tag/) article from all of three weeks ago, doesn't seem to think so.

PS-I also find the link that has been made by Degenerated, comparing myself with the Nazis, highly offensive.

SlickShoes
21-09-2010, 08:21 AM
no, seriously not at the wind up - im quite pizzeled of with hibs, this sit down eat your hotdog attitude and when i spend over 2or3 grand a year ???

the taylor report is bollocks - it just recommends seating in stadiums - it dont say nothing about sitting sown !!!!

and p.s. - the atmosphere in the east is pants - we got season tickets who cant sit next to mates cos they are "walk ups" and we cant ****ing sing anymore !!


WHERE IS THE - " EAST STAND TILL I DIE " Attitude Now ????

and - oh yes - im at the wind up ....btw doh

Whats with the constant assumption that if you are not smoking you have to be eating something? You do know that the food for sale on matchdays is optional, i often wait *SHOCK HORROR* until i get out of the stadium and home to get something to eat!

Jack
21-09-2010, 08:26 AM
Since you're both desperate for me to provide you with some facts and figures, I won't disappoint.

3,000 people die every year from lung cancer, caused by second hand smoke.
An estimated 35,000-62,000 non-smokers die each year from the effects of second hand smoke.
In England and Wales about 34 million days are lost through sickness absence caused by smoking.
In Scotland, the loss of these days costs the economy about £400 million per year.
Around half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their addiction.
Approximately 114,000 smokers in the UK die from smoking related diseases every year.

In case you think I'm making this up, in the interests of proof, I got this information from the ASH website.

I could quite easily find more damning facts and figures on the effects of smoking but I'm sure you know how this is going.

As for Degenerated's claim that Scotland lost its "sick man of Europe" tag about two years ago, this (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/194927-health-report-backs-scotlands-sick-man-of-europe-tag/) article from all of three weeks ago, doesn't seem to think so.

PS-I also find the link that has been made by Degenerated, comparing myself with the Nazis, highly offensive.

ASH! I really thought after I had quoted the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland you would have come up with something a bit more neutral than them to substantiate your claims.

I’m not going top argue with these stats. All I will say is that they have been provided in a carefully worded way. The official stats from the General Registrars Office (Scotland) and ONS (UK wide) are careful to describe such deaths as “associated with smoking”; “are believed to have been partly due to smoking”; “thought to be mainly due to smoking related diseases”. You see, even the official figures cant be specific!

There is no doubt smoking adversely affects the smokers health – this can be borne out by how much healthier a smoker feels after they have given up, how many it kills is unknown - even less the death of those affected by second hand smoke *. This is mainly because the stats that have been used for smoking include ‘death by smoking’ where smoking was not the main, or even a contributory, cause of death i.e. they could have lived longer with their lung cancer but the brain tumour drew their life to a close before the fags could. They died with a smoking related illness not of their smoking related illness.

I doubt you could find more damning facts than from an organisation whose sole purpose of existence is to demonise smoking. Car crash media!

The sick man of Europe thing really made me laugh at your argument, its neither wonder you never quoted it. Here allow me “Opposition leaders said Scotland must lose its "sick man of Europe" tag.” I’ll leave you to ponder why a claim by ‘Opposition leaders’ may not be that accurate.

* I maybe should explain that further.

There are many smoking related diseases.

I smoke, you I would imagine don’t.

I die of that damn tumour. My death certificate may well say the death was the tumour but it will also note that I had lung cancer – even though it had no contributing factor in my death. I died with a smoking related disease because it is known I smoke. It will not take into account I may have worked in a bus garage all my days and that’s where the lung cancer was more likely to come from.

You die of that of that damn tumour and have lung cancer as well. All the above for as for me but as a non-smoker that stats will have you down as dying with a smoking related disease; in a non-smoker, the assumption is taken that its second hand smoke – not the 40 years you breathed in diesel fumes.

degenerated
21-09-2010, 08:34 AM
Since you're both desperate for me to provide you with some facts and figures, I won't disappoint.

3,000 people die every year from lung cancer, caused by second hand smoke.
An estimated 35,000-62,000 non-smokers die each year from the effects of second hand smoke.
In England and Wales about 34 million days are lost through sickness absence caused by smoking.
In Scotland, the loss of these days costs the economy about £400 million per year.
Around half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their addiction.
Approximately 114,000 smokers in the UK die from smoking related diseases every year.

In case you think I'm making this up, in the interests of proof, I got this information from the ASH website.

I could quite easily find more damning facts and figures on the effects of smoking but I'm sure you know how this is going.

As for Degenerated's claim that Scotland lost its "sick man of Europe" tag about two years ago, this (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/194927-health-report-backs-scotlands-sick-man-of-europe-tag/) article from all of three weeks ago, doesn't seem to think so.

PS-I also find the link that has been made by Degenerated, comparing myself with the Nazis, highly offensive.

I didn't say anything of the sort regarding Scotland losing it's sick man of Europe tag.

degenerated
21-09-2010, 11:39 AM
ASH! I really thought after I had quoted the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland you would have come up with something a bit more neutral than them to substantiate your claims.

ASH and neutral are not two words i would ever have thought could be put in the same sentence. These modern day Mcarthyists use statisitics and mistruths selectivley and have even have the cheek to claim themseleves as a charity. Only 1% of their funding comes from charitable donations the bulk is received from companies like Pfizer and Glaxo SmithKline who make things like Champix and Nicorette, i wonder what the real agenda is here :hmmm:

Jack
21-09-2010, 12:57 PM
Pfizer and Glaxo SmithKline who make things like Champix and Nicorette, i wonder what the real agenda is here :hmmm:

That is such a completely different ‘discussion’ degenerated.

However before we all decide to start a new thread (I just have) :rolleyes:

How many companies want you dead? (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?193132-How-many-companies-want-you-dead&p=2582892#post2582892) :greengrin

Joe Baker II
21-09-2010, 04:39 PM
apparently it is against the law - to stand / smoke / maybe even sing !!

so its goodbye hibs, X4 season tickets - might come back when they allow the front bit of the east to become STANDING, but we wont be back - until we get treated like the loyal paying customer - we should be treated like ..and not like cattle !!!

we dont want to sit on our erses eating hotdogs and popcorn ffs - this is scotland no effing novia scotia and ice hockey - but u can eat your popcorn and at least you can drink a beer at the ice hockey ????

:bye: hibs

and :bye: yogi

and Big ROD = you can :bye: goodbye to 4 season tickets !!

:boo hoo::boo hoo::boo hoo:

sorry fellow hibees

social cleansing from football strikes again - i wont smoke in the toilets and i wont smoke or drink within the stadium, so i left at half time, and in a way after visiting easter road and the east stand quite regularly sice the mid 1980`s ......

I left easter road for pretty much the last time today...

Good post - a lot of people are feeling the same way as feel they are not being treated well by the club. Something noting anyone defending clubs attitude on smoking in temrs of stewarding resources should note - I doubt if stewarding additional costs in a year would even cover cost of one lost season ticket.

mcaitchi
29-09-2010, 11:50 PM
Good post - a lot of people are feeling the same way as feel they are not being treated well by the club. Something noting anyone defending clubs attitude on smoking in temrs of stewarding resources should note - I doubt if stewarding additional costs in a year would even cover cost of one lost season ticket.


THANKS - ure spot on = :thumbsup:

iwasthere1972
30-09-2010, 12:05 AM
apparently it is against the law - to stand / smoke / maybe even sing !!

so its goodbye hibs, X4 season tickets - might come back when they allow the front bit of the east to become STANDING, but we wont be back - until we get treated like the loyal paying customer - we should be treated like ..and not like cattle !!!

we dont want to sit on our erses eating hotdogs and popcorn ffs - this is scotland no effing novia scotia and ice hockey - but u can eat your popcorn and at least you can drink a beer at the ice hockey ????

:bye: hibs

and :bye: yogi

and Big ROD = you can :bye: goodbye to 4 season tickets !!

:boo hoo::boo hoo::boo hoo:

sorry fellow hibees

social cleansing from football strikes again - i wont smoke in the toilets and i wont smoke or drink within the stadium, so i left at half time, and in a way after visiting easter road and the east stand quite regularly sice the mid 1980`s ......

I left easter road for pretty much the last time today...

Got to ask why you bought the season tickets when you already knew that standing and smoking were not permitted. Nobody makes you eat hotdogs or popcorn. Do they sell popcorn? I wouldn't mind having a smoke at half time but if it's not allowed then so be it.

Pretty lame excuses for turning your back on Hibs but if that's your decision then fair enough.

GGTTH.