The Right to Smoke

[John Dibble]

Article from www.deanesmay.com

The Right To Smoke? (Michael Demmons)

I'm a (half-hearted) smoker. It's just something that I do, on occasion. And it is, I think, is the stupidest decision I ever made. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Not only that, but I'd be willing to bet that almost every smoker out there feels the same.

That said, I continue to be astonished with the subject of smoking bans. I understand that hospitals would ban smoking on their premises. And I don't even mind when it's been banned in government buildings. But a statewide or country-wide ban on a perfectly legal activity doesn't make a lick of sense to me - none whatsoever.

Now, it's Italy.


Italy's 14 million smokers prepared for a new way of life with new legislation banning smoking in all public places such as bars, restaurants, discotheques and offices. Plainclothes police will patrol the country's 240,000 eating and drinking places on the lookout for miscreants, press reports said. Customers face fines of 275 euros (360 dollars) and offending landlords up to 2,200 euros.

I've always believed that one of the greatest freedoms we have is the freedom of association. That means that owners of bars, restaurants, discotheques, and offices get to choose who they'd like to have (and keep) as clients. Additionally, you get to choose which of these establishments you'd like to patronize.

If a bar allows smoking, for example, you're perfectly able to choose NOT to walk in. If a lawyer allows smoking in her office, you're free to ask to meet her somewhere else or to choose another lawyer. In Italy, as in many states and countries around the world, the government has stepped in and taken away that choice. Yes. Smoking is unhealthy. But it is legal, and people know that the bar they're walking into allows it. Sorry, but there's a bar down the street that's smoke free. Use it.

The purpose of this post is to bring up two points:

1. If a bar owner has been ordered by the government to disallow smoking, a perfectly legal activity, in his establishment, 20-30% of his partons may decide they no longer wish to frequent the bar.

2. Conversely, if the government did not order the bar owner to ban smoking, smokers could still frequent his bar, and non-smokers would have the choice to either come in for a drink, find a non-smoking bar, or drink at home.

By banning smoking in private establishments, whose right is the government protecting? Before you answer, remember one thing: you do not have the "right" to go into this person's bar. It is a privilege. It is a private establishment and the bar owner is under no constitutional obligation to allow you inside. He can set rules. He can ban smoking. He can mandate that ripped clothing is not allowed.

Sure, smoking stinks and it's tremendously unhealthy. And non-smokers who walk into bars and restaurants know that and they do it anyway. The smarter non-smokers stay away or choose other bars and restaurants. They're bright enough to not need the government to coddle them, and the free market lives on.

My position is this: if the government can ban smoking in bars and restaurants, they can use the same logic to ban it in your home. What do you think?

[Richard]

This is sick.  Of course, the left will conveniently overlook this civil right that has now been revoked.

[John Dibble]

This is sick.  Of course, the left will conveniently overlook this civil right that has now been revoked.

Unfortunately, this isn't a 'left-right' issue. I know a number of normally right-wingers who are perfectly fine with banning smoking in 'public' places.

[J-Mann]

Legislation that bans smoking is ridiculous - this coming from a social conservative.  Salina, KS passed a similar ordinance around two years ago, banning smoking in all Salina bars and restaurants.  It's very offensive and quite a violation of private property rights.  And yes, what is keeping the government from telling you not to smoke it your own home?  I feel very differently about drugs (marijuana and anything more potent), but cigarrettes only cause harm to those smoking them, and perhaps those in the immediate vicinity.  But that was the option of non-smokers: they could leave the area if they didn't want to be around smoke.

It's actually quite surprising that it is usually the Democrats who support smoking bans over Republicans, when considering the issue on a strictly moral and ideological basis.  When removing the corporate and economic aspect of the issue, I also know many "right-wingers" who support smoking bans.

[Richard]

This is sick.  Of course, the left will conveniently overlook this civil right that has now been revoked.

Unfortunately, this isn't a 'left-right' issue. I know a number of normally right-wingers who are perfectly fine with banning smoking in 'public' places.

But the left prides themselves of being the protectors of civil rights.  Did the ACLU take this case up in New York?

[European]

O.K. first things first. I'm a smoker. I can do about 20a day. you are right I think that it is one of the WORST things that I have ever started. I would love to give up and hopefully I will this year.

I live in Ireland. Smoking was banned in in public buildings over 10 years ago. it was banned in all work places (including pubs and restarants) last year.

I was and am happy that the Government have done this. And any polls that have been done on this issue, the ban has 65 to 75% support so i'm not alone.

It plesent going out now, even though it means that I have to gut up and go outside to smoke and do you know what? The ban has just been accepted and people now just adapt to it. the only thing that people complain about is the weather.. In fact all pubs are putting in drinking gardens for smokers to sit and have a smoke.

That said, I continue to be astonished with the subject of smoking bans. I understand that hospitals would ban smoking on their premises. And I don't even mind when it's been banned in government buildings. But a statewide or country-wide ban on a perfectly legal activity doesn't make a lick of sense to me - none whatsoever.

But what about the people who work in bars and don't smoke? They don't have a choice about going somewhere else. what about there right to a clean and safe work place?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you still do. All that you have to do is get up and go outside when you want a smoke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

there was a small drop but that was more to the fact that it is cheeper to stay in and drink instead of going out, but that has always been a tradition in Ireland, going out in Ireland can cost up to $200 in a night with drinks, nightclubs and taxies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

or the smoker can go outside for a smoke. easer solution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

socitys right to live in an enviroment that's safe and clean. In the fact that smoking related problems cost the tax payer in the amount of taxes he has to pay. (we have universal heath care)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

see above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So none smokers have to be smart and the smoker can be dumb coz he can't controll a habit or just get up and go outside for the sake of those around them?

the free markey is not the solution to everything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No there would never be something like that. The laws that ban smoking in Ireland and the Italy are based on European Union Law relating to safty in the workplace. America I don't think so. But you could you the same argument that gay men use that it is none of the governments busness what you get up to in your home as a consenting adult.

... but cigarrettes only cause harm to those smoking them, and perhaps those in the immediate vicinity.

wrong....if one person slighs up in a bar, And it's happend but it's mostly tourists, you can smell it all over the bar or club.

I don't think that you can place the health of others over your personal desires to engage in a potentialy high risk activity.

[A18]

Yes, thank you for proving what a slippery slope universal health care is. One day you won't be able to smoke, because it costs taxpayers money. Then you won't be able to drink alcohol, or take drugs without a perscription, etc. etc.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The simple fact is that second hand smoke causes harm.

The small amounts of damage caused by each individual cigarette makes the tort model of redressing the damage impractical.  That leaves taxation and regulation as the only viable ways of handling the issue.  If you are are anti-regulation, that leaves only taxation as a viable option.  I suppose charging a tax on restaurants, bars, and other public establishments that allow smoking would be one way of dealing with the issue.  They would then pass on to their customers the costs of this tax and thus those who choose to smoke in public would pay for their damage, albeit very indirectly.  Of course, you would then have to presume that the government would actually spend the money raised by the tax on those affected by second hand smoke, an ifffy proposition at best.

[John Dibble]

1. Workers in bars - if they indeed have a problem with it, why are they working at the bar in the first place? And who ever said you had a right to a clean, safe workplace? You don't - hell, coal miners have a dirty job, and it ain't that safe. Of course they usually get more in pay due to the hazards. And speaking of rights, what about property rights?

2. 'Easier solution' - Yes, it may be easier for a smoker to just go outside, but this non-chalant attitude is pretty much telling me that you are willing to throw away freedom for the sake of convenience.

3. Non smokers have to be smart - yes, they have to, welcome to this little thing called the price of freedom. When dealing with a free society you have to deal with the decisions of others - whether it be free speech that offends you or a restaraunt owner exercising his private property rights by allowing smoking.

No, the free market is not always the solution, but the free market isn't meant to make every single person happy. Basically you want to throw around the power of government for your own convenience - just don't bitch to me when the government uses it's power to stop you from doing something you enjoy for someone else's convenience.

4. 'No there would never be something like that' - One word: PROHIBITION. Need some more? Three more words: WAR ON DRUGS. The government has and still does forbid people to consume substances within the privacy of their own homes. Don't tell me it couldn't or wouldn't happen - it can, it has, and it does to this very day.

[John Dibble]

The simple fact is that second hand smoke causes harm.

The small amounts of damage caused by each individual cigarette makes the tort model of redressing the damage impractical.  That leaves taxation and regulation as the only viable ways of handling the issue.  If you are are anti-regulation, that leaves only taxation as a viable option.  I suppose charging a tax on restaurants, bars, and other public establishments that allow smoking would be one way of dealing with the issue.  They would then pass on to their customers the costs of this tax and thus those who choose to smoke in public would pay for their damage, albeit very indirectly.  Of course, you would then have to presume that the government would actually spend the money raised by the tax on those affected by second hand smoke, an ifffy proposition at best.

Better idea - ban smoking in places that are actually public, ie owned by government and therefore the people. This is perfectly acceptable to me. If someone goes to a place that allows smoking, it is private, and their choice to go, so they have no right to bitch about it since they chose to take the risk of entering a place with an unhealthy substance in the air.

[opebo]

So what, drugs and prostitution have been illegal in Italy and most countries for ages.  Freedom is incredibly rare.

[Bono]

So what, drugs and prostitution have been illegal in Italy and most countries for ages.  Freedom is incredibly rare.

Who the hell's talking about Italy?

[John Dibble]

So what, drugs and prostitution have been illegal in Italy and most countries for ages.  Freedom is incredibly rare.

Who the hell's talking about Italy?

The ban in the original post(once again, written by someone else, but I agree with all that he said) was in Italy.

[John Dibble]

Heh, just saw a great analogy in the original discussion for this article(go to the link I linked and find it).

Question for those who are bitching about this - would you walk onto a shooting range where you knew people were recklessly shooting their guns and then say it's their fault that you were shot, even though you knew they were recklessly shooting guns and you entered the area of your own free will?

[Gabu]

I'd just like to chime in from the left as someone who is very much opposed to anything like this.  If it's a privately owned building, the government should not have any authority to dictate what anyone can and can't do in that building (besides things that are illegal everywhere, of course).  I normally hate "slippery slope" arguments, but this is a case where I feel that they're appropriate, because there is no difference whatsoever between banning smoking in a privately owned building where business occurs and banning smoking in someone's home.

[David S]

I'd just like to chime in from the left as someone who is very much opposed to anything like this.  If it's a privately owned building, the government should not have any authority to dictate what anyone can and can't do in that building (besides things that are illegal everywhere, of course).  I normally hate "slippery slope" arguments, but this is a case where I feel that they're appropriate, because there is no difference whatsoever between banning smoking in a privately owned building where business occurs and banning smoking in someone's home.

Very well stated.

[Dave from Michigan]

The county commission here voted for a smoking ban, although it exempt restuarants and bars.  thankfully the county executive vetoed it.  The owner of the business should decide if they want smoking allowed. 

[bushforever]

I don't care.  I don't smoke.  But I go to concerts, restuarants, parties, etc.  I expect the second-hand smoke.  Sure, I may die of heart disease at age 50, but we're all going to die someday.  If you don't like second-hand smoke, don't go out to eat, or to bars, or to parties, etc.

[danwxman]

Sure, I may die of heart disease at age 50, but we're all going to die someday.  If you don't like second-hand smoke, don't go out to eat, or to bars, or to parties, etc.

Another classic

[European]

(banging head softly on wall)

Yes, thank you for proving what a slippery slope universal health care is.

I'm sorry that you missunderstood what I was aming at. I forgot that you don't care about the general heath of socity, but I don't mind paying for a health care that works for all the ctizens. the reason that I said....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was I was trying to do was reducing the human point to pure economics it the hope that I could draw a picture that you might understand. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enought.

And as for universal helthcare......that's another story, let's move on.

1. Workers in bars - if they indeed have a problem with it, why are they working at the bar in the first place? And who ever said you had a right to a clean, safe workplace? You don't - hell, coal miners have a dirty job, and it ain't that safe. Of course they usually get more in pay due to the hazards. And speaking of rights, what about property rights?

1. The right of Property is greater than the right of the Individual to be safe? What, as a side bar, if a strip club wanted to open 100m from a school? I'd this that the right's of those children would outway the right to use privet property as you see fit? would that not crupt the school children and turn them all to....drugs? And if you say that it would depend on the community and the community has a right to determin where and what busnesses set up, well then there is a curbe on the rights of property owners wouldn't it?

2. The origional post was about Italy introducing a ban on smoking and as you probable know Italy is a member state of the European Union and in the European Union you do have the legal right to work in a clean and safe enviroment. So let's keep the conversation in context.

3. Coal miners have the protection of health and safty regulations, that is that the are provided whith the equitment and procedures to make sure that there job dosen't cause them to have heath problems in later life, i.e. miners lung, coal dust breathed into the lungs, being the major cause of death among coal miners in the 19th centuary.  it dosen't stop the job being still dangerous, but it reduces the possibility of the job killing you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Throwing away freedom for the sake of convenience? O.k. My defination of freedom and yours are completly different. I hold freedom to be the ability to make your own decisions and is not narrowly defined what i can do as a consumer. and it is non-chalant my attude, because I am not being told that I can never smoke again and that it's banned forever. it's just that if I want to smoke I would be required to walk outside and have one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know what it is to live in a free socity. but i know that living in a free socity mean not just what I want all the time that sometime, and you should try this, you could think about others. That I'm not some two year old child running around demanding that everyone else let's me do what I want and to hell with the consequence to others and if they don't like it they can go somewhere else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I enjoy smoking and it was banned from pubs, i'm not bitching about it. i'm defending the rights of goverment to regulate certin behavour for the greater good, (i bet you just hate that sentance).  My rights are spelt out in our constitution, and not as an adendum and an amendment to the constitution, and it is only through a vote by the people that it can be changed. the same with the treaty establishing a constitution for eurpoe, the charter of fundemental rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. i have more fate in our system of government that you seem to have in your. and yes there have been things that governments in the past have done and i have disagreed with, but i know that i have my chance to change things....when the elections happen. and let me give you an example. in 1982 the government wanted to place V.A.T. (Valued Added Tax) on shoes and there for childrens shoes, and the government fell and an election was held and the government parites got a pasting on election day and it didn't happen.

[Tory]

1. The right of Property is greater than the right of the Individual to be safe?

I've been in many a pub, and around many a smoker. I can honestly tell you I have never feared for my safety when the bloke next to me lights up.

[Gabu]

1. The right of Property is greater than the right of the Individual to be safe? What, as a side bar, if a strip club wanted to open 100m from a school? I'd this that the right's of those children would outway the right to use privet property as you see fit? would that not crupt the school children and turn them all to....drugs? And if you say that it would depend on the community and the community has a right to determin where and what busnesses set up, well then there is a curbe on the rights of property owners wouldn't it?

Kids are going to see cigarettes everywhere.  It's unavoidable, and for that matter, it's not the government's responsibility to shield kids from material that some may find offensive.  If the kid had good parents, they would sit the kid down and gently talk him or her through the subject and would explain to the kid why he or she shouldn't look at or do something.

3. Coal miners have the protection of health and safty regulations, that is that the are provided whith the equitment and procedures to make sure that there job dosen't cause them to have heath problems in later life, i.e. miners lung, coal dust breathed into the lungs, being the major cause of death among coal miners in the 19th centuary.  it dosen't stop the job being still dangerous, but it reduces the possibility of the job killing you.

Being a coal miner, you have absolutely no choice but to go into an area where breathing the air may be detrimental to your health.  In places where you have to be, in which it could be detrimental to your health, it certainly should be required that precautions are taken to protect your health.  Going to restaurants that allow smoking, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary.

Throwing away freedom for the sake of convenience? O.k. My defination of freedom and yours are completly different. I hold freedom to be the ability to make your own decisions and is not narrowly defined what i can do as a consumer. and it is non-chalant my attude, because I am not being told that I can never smoke again and that it's banned forever. it's just that if I want to smoke I would be required to walk outside and have one.

Nothing is restricting restaurant owners from restricting patrons from smoking if they so choose.  Why should the government force the restaurant owners to do so?  What if the restaurant owner likes smoking himself?  Then the government would be effectively telling him that he's not allowed to smoke in his own house.

I know what it is to live in a free socity. but i know that living in a free socity mean not just what I want all the time that sometime, and you should try this, you could think about others. That I'm not some two year old child running around demanding that everyone else let's me do what I want and to hell with the consequence to others and if they don't like it they can go somewhere else.

How is it not thinking about what other people want to allow restaurant owners to allow smoking in buildings that they themselves own?

[John Dibble]

(banging head softly on wall)

You're about to be doing more of it. Maybe even harder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. The right of Property is greater than the right of the Individual to be safe? What, as a side bar, if a strip club wanted to open 100m from a school? I'd this that the right's of those children would outway the right to use privet property as you see fit? would that not crupt the school children and turn them all to....drugs? And if you say that it would depend on the community and the community has a right to determin where and what busnesses set up, well then there is a curbe on the rights of property owners wouldn't it?
[/quote]

Let's get one thing straight - you don't have the right to work anywhere you don't own. Your employer, by his or her grace, allows you the privelege of working on his or her property - you have absolutely no right to be there if the employer does not want you there. Also, since slavery is illegal, you are obviously there of your own free will, and you also of your own free will accepted the wage or salary that was offered by your employer. So, as long as you are there of your own free will, you can leave of your own free will - don't like the risks, don't take them, find work elsewhere. Can't do that? Then start your own business and then you can make your workplace up how you see fit.

As for the strip club, Gabu sums it up - it is for the parents to ensure their kids understand such things. Also, I advocate school choice, with vouchers or other system, so parents should just be allowed to switch schools if such a place opened up. And I need you to think for a moment - if a strip club opened next to a church, how many people would go? Not many - there'd be priest or nuns constantly around and nobody really wants that on their minds when they are trying to enjoy themselves. Similar concept with schools - people will be too worried about being seen by people they know for the business to be successful.

Just another question for ya - if a school decided to open up 100m from a strip club, should the strip club be shut down because of the children?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm posting over the concept of smoking bans in general, and I really don't give a damn what the laws are in the EU - something being law does not make it right. And once again, people don't have the legal right to work anywhere - their employers allow it and the people work of their own free will in those places.

And I've also heard of a case in the EU where a man who was self-employed(writer or something) was forbidden from smoking in the very small building where he worked. The thing was he worked alone - nobody ever used the building but him, but he was still forbidden from doing so because it was a 'workplace'. His 'right' to a clean and safe workplace was forced upon him - as far as I know you have a choice whether to exercise a right. Some right this is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Tory pretty well sums this up - smoking won't kill you that quick. Working in a bar is like working in a coal mine - there are risks to the job. Big difference between regulating something like structure to ensure a mine shaft won't collapse and something like smoking in bars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Throwing away freedom for the sake of convenience? O.k. My defination of freedom and yours are completly different. I hold freedom to be the ability to make your own decisions and is not narrowly defined what i can do as a consumer. and it is non-chalant my attude, because I am not being told that I can never smoke again and that it's banned forever. it's just that if I want to smoke I would be required to walk outside and have one.
[/quote]

You aren't being forbidden from smoking ever again YET. That does not mean it won't happen. Need I remind you that there are more non-smokers than smokers, and it would only take enough of them to vote to ban smoking altogether to really make it happen.

"I hold freedom to be the ability to make your own decisions and is not narrowly defined what i can do as a consumer" - same with me, the only difference is you are willing to throw away your freedom of choice as a consumer. What if I am not willing to do so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know what it is to live in a free socity. but i know that living in a free socity mean not just what I want all the time that sometime, and you should try this, you could think about others. That I'm not some two year old child running around demanding that everyone else let's me do what I want and to hell with the consequence to others and if they don't like it they can go somewhere else.
[/quote]

I do think about others - which is why I think I should allow them to make their own choices, even if they are stupid. Allowing someone to smoke at a restaraunt that I don't even own(and am at of my own free will) hardly affects me at all - that's far different from forbidding someone from stabbing me with a knife. And once again I'm not against banning smoking in government buildings - hell, I'm for that, as a citizen my tax dollars are forced to pay for them, so I better have a say in how they are run. The difference is I don't want to infringe upon the rights of others to decide basic policy on their own damn land - I go to restaraunts of my own will and pay for my meal of my own will, so since I'm not being coerced into anything(and neither are the whiners) it would hardly be fair of me to go demanding like a two year old child that people do what the hell I want(stop allowing smoking, in this case) and give in to my every whim.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I enjoy smoking and it was banned from pubs, i'm not bitching about it. i'm defending the rights of goverment to regulate certin behavour for the greater good, (i bet you just hate that sentance).  My rights are spelt out in our constitution, and not as an adendum and an amendment to the constitution, and it is only through a vote by the people that it can be changed. the same with the treaty establishing a constitution for eurpoe, the charter of fundemental rights.
[/quote]

Oh you're damned right I hate that sentence. The 'greater good' you say? A catchphrase used by communist regimes if I'm not mistaken - heck, they were all about the greater good, and you see how 'good' they reall were. Oh, and I also hate things like 'think of the children'. Phrases like these are just ways to stir up emotions and make people think ideas are good - intent does not make ideas good.

Also, the government has no rights - the government exists because the people allow it to. Your rights aren't gauranteed by the constitution - they existed beforehand. The Constitution, at least ours, only restricts government from infringing upon those rights, it doesn't create rights. Anything that the government grants you is privilege, and can be taken away.

I also don't give a rat's ass if it's one or one billion people who try to take my rights away - I'll fight them regardless. I've said before that democracy does not gaurantee freedom. Democracy is mob rule.

The only way to gaurantee freedom is to maintain reasoned self-interest. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, self-interest is not wrong. Self-interest is survival, the very substance of life. Through reasoned self interest, one can easily determine that the best way is to allow other people to lead their lives freely. To give in to the 'greater good' is to be a slave - I shall be shackled by no supposed 'greater good', for I am a free man and my life belongs to nobody else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. i have more fate in our system of government that you seem to have in your. and yes there have been things that governments in the past have done and i have disagreed with, but i know that i have my chance to change things....when the elections happen. and let me give you an example. in 1982 the government wanted to place V.A.T. (Valued Added Tax) on shoes and there for childrens shoes, and the government fell and an election was held and the government parites got a pasting on election day and it didn't happen.
[/quote]

Your faith(I assume that's what you meant) is mere foolishness. Do you honestly believe you can trust the government, just because people decided to vote down a tax? Don't make me laugh - of course they did, people hate taxes, especially ones that constantly assault them, like sales taxes(income taxes are much more easy to get by people, since they discriminate against the rich as well as you never actually see the money you lose). However, what makes you think that the mob won't vote against your rights at a future point in time? Just because the people can vote doesn't mean that they won't vote to restrict freedom. BEHOLD THE GLORY OF DEMOCRACY

[European]

because you don't own the heath of others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

well that may be the case in north america, but in ireland (and a good porten of western europe) smoking advertising is banned. that's really going to get up you nose it's it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it is the duty of socity, which is expressed in the form of the government, to make sure that children are not going to be influnced into smoking by slick advertising. and don't tell me that advsetising dosen't work or they wouldn't spend so much money on it. Now i'm not saying, and i will never support, government replacing the parents of the child but it can provide help to parents through things like banning advertising on tv and billbords.

another thing that I think should be brought into this debate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

o.k.? cool.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it so hard to fatham that you could have laws which pretect the health of workers and why would they be so wrong? Where you work is there law to make sure that you are same and free from danger. if that's so why stop others from having the same right to a safe working enviroment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

because volentary bans almost never work. self regulation can always be given a try but when it involves peoples health, its the rold and duity of government to protect the collictive rights of everyone to be safe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

see my answer above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please see my prevous answer. the bans in ireland and Italy are based on safty in the work place. the ban in Norway is tied to that (coz they'll be joining in another few years [say 2020]) principle of law.

o.k...there are two other posts and it's too late to answer them now so i'll answer them tomorrow.

i'm off to bed so that i can go to work in my smoke free office, eat lunch in my smoke free café and meet a friend for a pint in my local smoke free pub :> talk to ye tomorrow.