Yes, I know, it\’s been pronounced dead many times: Tom Lehrer after Nixon was elected being one of them. But really:
Smoking tobacco in restaurants and cafes across Holland is now illegal, but customers are still allowed to light up pure cannabis cigarettes.
….
He said: "It\’s absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they\’ll look to see if you\’ve got cigarette in your marijuana."
What can one say?
I think the Lehrer quote was when Kissinger was given the Nobel peace prize, though it is a rather bizarre situation the dutch have found themselves in.
“Far out, maan!”
“Far out, maan!”
When did you first realise you’d become a ’50s beatnik?
Well its no more (but no less) illiberal than the situation that used to prevail here where you could smoke tobacco in restauraunts and cafes, but not dope. And it is more liberal than the current situation here where you can smoke neither in cafes and restauraunts.
A tad confusing for the tourists, I suspect.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
“And it is more liberal than the current situation here where you can smoke neither in cafes and restauraunts.”
Depends on your definition of “liberal” doesn’t it? My freedom from your cigarette smoke surely counts as something?
Yes, yes, before the ban I used to have the “choice” of not going into a pub or of leaving a restaurant once someone at the next table lit up. Rather like I can “choose” not to get stabbed by merely avoiding London.
“My freedom from your cigarette smoke surely counts as something?”
Absolutely. Until breathing becomes an optional exercise, I’m delighted with the ban. At least heroin addicts don’t make me share their addiction.
“Until breathing becomes an optional exercise, I’m delighted with the ban.”
Of course, your and my liberty had nothing to do with the reasons for the ban, and the speed at which it’s turning into an anti-smoker witch-hunt is quite disturbing.
The ban had nothing to do with your liberty to sit in a smoke-free zone, which existed in most restaurants and pubs before the ban. It really is a most amazing assault on freedom of action in private property.
I’m fairly sure that every owner of a restaurant/pub had the right to make their premesis non smoking before the ban. Some restaurants even did this.
Eva, I honestly and sincerely hope something you enjoy is banned next. And do not for one fucking second think it will not be, unless you are as boring as the one eyed cunt currently ‘running’ the joint. Do you like cream cakes? Salt on your chips? Pies? An occasional glass of wine? If so, watch this space.
Looks like there will be a few unconcious English people in Amsterdam soon!
> Yes, yes, before the ban I used to have the “choice” of not going into a pub or of leaving a restaurant once someone at the next table lit up. Rather like I can “choose” not to get stabbed by merely avoiding London.
I’m sorry, is London a privately owned establishment? I had no idea.
Oh don’t weaken the argument with absurd untruths such as “The ban had nothing to do with your liberty to sit in a smoke-free zone, which existed in most restaurants and pubs before the ban.” Smoke-free, my arse. Full of smoke drifting from the next table, more like.
“Do you like cream cakes?” Will go straight to my hips, no one else’s. “Salt on your chips?” Might give me high blood pressure, no one else. “Pies?” See cream cakes, alas. 😉 “An occasional glass of wine?” Improves my mood, no one else’s. Cigarette in an enclosed public area – everyone gets to share it whether they enjoy it or not. Anyone remember what it was like when smoking was permitted on airplanes?
(But agree about the witchhunt aspect.)
“I’m fairly sure that every owner of a restaurant/pub had the right to make their premesis non smoking before the ban.”
I’m sure some pubs out there frowned on their customers getting drunk and disorderly. We still need laws against it, though because sometimes the free market sometimes isn’t enough (or do you think that the “No dogs, blacks or Irish” pubs should still have the right to choose who to serve?).
” My freedom from your cigarette smoke surely counts as something?”
Its not about my freedom or yours. Its about a business owner being able to set their own smoking policy rather than have the state do it for them.
Dutch restaurants and cafés are disgusting because of the smoking. Whether they can make this stick is another matter.
Its not about my freedom or yours. Its about a business owner being able to set their own smoking policy rather than have the state do it for them.
I’ll believe that when I see smokers actively protesting that non-smokers are not breathing out enough noxious crap and carbon monoxide all over them and their meals.
Frankly I am thinking of opening a Smoke Easy. A place where, if you know the secret knock, you can have a quick fag on the sly.
Think it is worth paying off the Treasury Boys?
When did the great libertarian Kay Tie become such a fan of the nanny state?
I do.
Back in the day, when airlines used to ventilate their planes somewhat more generously, it was for the teenage me one of the gentle pleasures of flying: catching the alluring scent of a duty free ciggie on the breeze from ten rows back.
Must admit though that, against all my finer liberal instincts, it is nicer without the smoke in pubs and that. I never encounter cigarette smoke these days at all.
If there is ever to be a case made for total tobacco prohibition though, I feel it will be based upon bad breath..
“I’ll believe that when I see smokers actively protesting that non-smokers are not breathing out enough noxious crap and carbon monoxide all over them and their meals.”
Its not a case of you having to “beleive” anything. It is a fairly self evident truth that business owners no longer have the right to set their own smoking policy in their own business.