Smokin!

[timwilky]

IMHO the only logical choice. A total ban. Yes I am an ex of 12 years standing.

Only problem is it is probably unenforcable. If my locals don't enforce chucking out they are also going to turn a blind eye to smoking as well.


As my daughter put it last night, "When I go in a pub, it is my choice whether or not to drink alchohol, but I have no choice over second hand smoke"

In those that do enforce it I can see it being like some workplaces where you have to walk through a doorway of concentrated smoke in order to get inside

[Supervox]

First of all let me state YES, I AM A SMOKER !!

The thing that gets me about this whole smoking ban thing is the hypocrisy that surrounds it. I accept that smoking may harm my health, & that other people have the right to a 'clean' environment - so, if it's so dangerous & anti-social, why not just ban it altogether ?

TAX REVENUE - that is why !!

No British government could afford to a total ban without major tax increases somewhere else.

Personally I couldn't give a damn about the ban - I don't smoke in the house because of my children, most restaurants round this way have been no-smoking for years, so it's not gonna bother me standing outside a pub if I want a cigarette.

[Foey]

First of all let me state YES, I AM A SMOKER !!

The thing that gets me about this whole smoking ban thing is the hypocrisy that surrounds it. I accept that smoking may harm my health, & that other people have the right to a 'clean' environment - so, if it's so dangerous & anti-social, why not just ban it altogether ?

TAX REVENUE - that is why !!

No British government could afford to a total ban without major tax increases somewhere else.

Personally I couldn't give a damn about the ban - I don't smoke in the house because of my children, most restaurants round this way have been no-smoking for years, so it's not gonna bother me standing outside a pub if I want a cigarette.


Totaly agree. =D>

I would also like to say that in a lot of cases smokers die younger, for you lot that don't smoke surely thats a good thing as it helps to ease the burden on the state pensions so you may end up getting one, i really couldn't give a to55 about the ban as, like supervox, i only ever smoke outside anyway.

[Moo]

I think if they shot the first few found smoking in pubs it should be easy to enforce after that. :lol:

[anna]

I'm a smoker and to be honest I can go all day without a smoke until it comes to a night out in the pub.. if they banned smoking it would certainly mean i would quit!

[Foey]

I'm a smoker and to be honest I can go all day without a smoke until it comes to a night out in the pub.. if they banned smoking it would certainly mean i would quit!



They have.

[Jelster]

I lost both my parents to smoking related illnesses, so I guess you can tell which side of the fence I sit..

But for me, it's occasions like last night that I want improved so am glad about the ban. I took my wife to a small restaurant that allows smoking. I had about 5 smokers around me and at times it really annoyed me.

Yes, smokers do have rights, but what about us people that don't smoke who are constantly subjected to having the smell and discomfort around us ? What's my choice , to get up and leave ?

Personally I find many smokers very selfish, just lighting up when THEY want to, with no consideration for others. It's about bloody time this was sorted out....

.

[helen]

Pretty good news I reckon, but I'm not really sure it should be banned in private clubs too - that seems to eradicate the one chance smokers had to continue to smoke and socialize at the same time, with like minded puffers.

As the BBC news put it last night, Parliament was making the choice between the nation's freedom of choice and public health, and chose the latter. Doesn't really sit easy with my sentiments as a general principle, but at least the nanny state has been put to good use at last.

[Viney]

Lo0ok you fools. All they have done, is banned the smoking of Blankets!

Tish, dont you read the headlines! :roll:

I think its wrong. People should be aloud to smoke where they want. Im a non smoker, but i see un underlying thing to all this. Next thing, they will stop smoking in the open, then in your house....just mark my words.

Before long, we will be living in one of these 'fantasy' worlds that we see in movies. Anyway, i stuff up Gordon Browns figures by buying my mums ciggarettes abroad.

[Skip]

Before long, we will be living in one of these 'fantasy' worlds that we see in movies.
My girlfriend has based her dissertation on "Hyperreality" - its quite an interesting subject...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

Oh and as an ex-smoker like Mr Wilky - I think its great! :P

[Balky001]

The more laws you make, the more criminals you make of otherwise law abiding citizens.

I'm not in favour of smoking - although I started in my early teens and only quit 3 years ago when I passed my bike test (my tabs money paid off the finance on the SV!). In the 20 years or so I smoked, I hardly ever lit up in a restaurant. It wasn't for any other reason than respecting the enviroment I was in. Like playing loud music late at night, parking your car over someone elses drive or gunning your louds cans at top revs at 5am - you just don't if you respect your area. I think if more people used respect rather than their 'rights', laws like this would not have to be passed. Communities would govern themselves.

What irks me, and has done since I can remember is that smoking is legal - any other product that, when used in the manner is was developed for and not abused, can still cause serious illness or death, would never be allowed if in private hands. The fact it makes trillions of dollars worldwide might be the reason they keep it legal? But then the dilema is if they banned it where's my freedom of choice gone. Oh, its just so confusing!!!

[Foey]

The next thing to be banned in public places will be drinking alcohol, it can be very anti social & hazardous to health in more ways than one.

[Filipe M.]

The way I see this, once again the law has been passed to (try to) enforce common sense in people who don't have it.
I'm not a smoker, I hate second hand smoke, and I unfortunately must admire you smokers who have the common sense and respect for others to go and smoke outside so that it doesn't bother anyone else. And I only say unfortunately because this should be the rule, not the exception!
Of course smokers have the right to smoke wherever and whenever they want, but I also have the right to breathe in a smoke free environment. I have been in the situation of having lunch in a pretty small restaurant, 5 tables, and at a time I was the only one eating while everybody else was smoking. Like Jelster put it, what was my option? Get up and leave? :? I hate to bring back the old comparison, but would anyone else tolerate me if I had a serious gas-passing "problem" in that situation or would I just be considered plain rude?! :?
Another thing that p*sses me even more: people that finish their meal and just sit there smoking alone while everyone else is rushing to get a table or to get out and free the table for others! :evil:
It's a pity they don't pass the ban around here, people are still allowed to smoke in pubs, restaurants, bars and the lot. Now I also wonder how many owners would have the guts to enforce a ban and risk losing customers...

k, rant over. :roll:

[Ed]

In Spain the problem is even worse than here, it seems that everyone smokes, encouraged no doubt by the low price. Well you reap what you sow, what a harvest to look forward to in 20 years' time, I hope that the Spanish government is saving up to foot the huge healthcare cost bill. I daresay that by then they will have standardised healthcare across the EU and we'll end up paying :roll:

I'm in favour of a total ban. I hate the smell, I hate the stink on my clothes and my skin. Tolerance? - what's that?

[Daimo]

Stop the smoking in pub
less people in pubs
less profit for pubs (most pubs only make a very marginal profit, its the lifestyle)
Many pubs may close
They aren't reducing the tax on fags to compensate?

You watch our taxes go up, again, when the government realise they aren't making billions of £ each year.

End of the day, regards to suffering and hospitals. I pay my taxes each year so if im ill (whether self induced or not) then I go to a hospital. I've already paid for it.....

Its about choice. Landlords should be able to make their own choice as to whether their pub is a smoking or non smoking pub, or even if it has seperate sections.

Now im not a full time smoker, nor a drinker, but when I DO go out, i like to have a fag. Not to look cool or to be "it", but I enjoy having a fag and beer. I consume about 4 units PER MONTH.......

So, smoking is banned in pubs (Arn't English pubs known worldwide for being the "old smokey english pub?"), but its still ok to drink 10 pints, get in a car, drive down the road and run someone over, orrrrrr, drink 10 pints then go home and beat the wife???

IMO, you can't enforce what they have. Either ban it completly (in which case your taking about peoples rights and freedom) INCLUDING alchole, or leave it to the owners..

As said on Kiss this morning, what bout landlords who saved for 20 years to run a pub, only now to find they cannot smoke in their OWN pub?

As for people complaining about smoke and smoking, fair enough, but then there should be choices for ALL people, not just non smokers. Why should smokers have to go outside? What rights do non smokers have over smokers? Again, just because "society" and the government say something, that means its correct? No, thats complete BS. People should be free to decide what they want.

If a non smoker wants to go into a pub and its a smoking pub, then either deal with it, or go to non smoking pub... Why should smokers have to suffer, the same as why should non smokers need to suffer.

Just abnning it in pubs is a rediculas idea. Just another example of where this country is going...

Whoops, whats that i see, 50,000 more illegal imigrants coming into the country, hell, bring em in, that will cover the taxes right?????????

[localhost]

Being a smoker i can't wait till im not allowed to smoke.
It will make me quit.
I quit smoking atleast once a week, but i allways give in as soon as im in a pub or a restaurant.

Wintertime, it's cold outside, and you aren't allowed to smoke inside, that will ruin the pleasure of smoking surely!

I think they should stop selling cigarettes!
Then you wouldn't have a choice.
And no, you shouldn't ban alcohol just because of that.

[northwind]

Pretty good news I reckon, but I'm not really sure it should be banned in private clubs too - that seems to eradicate the one chance smokers had to continue to smoke and socialize at the same time, with like minded puffers.


2 reasons for that, as far as I can see. For one, it'd be seriously unfair on public houses, who'd have to enforce a smoking ban that might not apply to a bowling club, miner's club or whatever down the road. It's one thing to possibly lose business from smokers who stop going to the pub, since that would be a smaller number... totally different to have smokers simply going somewhere else.

The other thing is that one of the justifications for the ban is for the staff who work there- you have the choice of what pub to go to, they don't have so much choice. And if you start making exemptions for one sort of place that weakens that argument.

Me, I'd've been in favour of "smoking licenses" like drinks licenses... Make places apply for it, and have requirements about ventilation etc. But then, that could be said to unfairly penalise older pubs without the capacity for serious air-con. And if I'm going to unfairly penalise one sort of pub, it won't be proper wee pubs, it'll be big echoing sheds ;)

[sharriso74]

I think we will see more legislation like this come in as society becomes more selfish. If people don't want to be responsible for their actions the goverment will legislate more to force people to behave in an acceptable manner.

[Ed]

I think we will see more legislation like this come in as society becomes more selfish. If people don't want to be responsible for their actions the goverment will legislate more to force people to behave in an acceptable manner.

I honestly think that this is the most constructive view I've heard in the entire debate - even more so than my own :oops:

[Daimo]

I think we will see more legislation like this come in as society becomes more selfish. If people don't want to be responsible for their actions the goverment will legislate more to force people to behave in an acceptable manner.

And with all the real issues going on in this country, people smoking is one of the worst?

Are there not far more important things to be focusing on?

[sharriso74]

I think we will see more legislation like this come in as society becomes more selfish. If people don't want to be responsible for their actions the goverment will legislate more to force people to behave in an acceptable manner.

And with all the real issues going on in this country, people smoking is one of the worst?

Are there not far more important things to be focusing on?

Agreed there are a lot more important issues to be delt with, number one in my book is the rampent waste of goverment departments. These require effort and risk alienating a large number of voters so a softer option is to deal with basically very minor issues smoking, fox hunting etc none of which are real vote losers but grab the headlines.

[Daimo]

They are trying to en-courage voting, but whats the point when it clearly doesn't get anywhere. Again, another prime example of the public Vs Government, and yet again, another prime example of the public being ignored....

Also...

If the ban causes a reduction in the sale of tobacco products then unfortunately all of our taxes are going to go up. What is to stop it? Cause tax on tobacco products are a very high source of revenue for the government, and as non-smokers want a non smoking enviroment, does that mean all you non-smokers are happy to pay the extra taxes that the government WILL force?

Meanwhile smokers shouldn't have to pay the extra taxes, as they are the ones still buying the fags, supplying the revenue, yet have to stand outside still????

But can you see this happening?? Non smokers would be happy to do this? Yeah, right................

Clever thinking...........

[Ed]

And with all the real issues going on in this country, people smoking is one of the worst?

Are there not far more important things to be focusing on?

No. The issue has been fudged for far too long. There's always something far more important. The question is, 'important to whom'?

[Foey]

I think we will see more legislation like this come in as society becomes more selfish. If people don't want to be responsible for their actions the goverment will legislate more to force people to behave in an acceptable manner.



Question is who will enforce any of these changes, the police, i can't see that somehow they are already overstretched as it is.

[Stingo]

The way I see it is that we live in a democracy - we all have to abide by a set of rules that the majority have voted in. At present, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm certain that there are now more non smokers in the UK than smokers. So, in a society where majority rules, it follows that the smokers will now have to suffer some discomfort, wheresa historically the non smokers have been suffering discomfort.

I don't believe that the drinking of alcohol is going to be banned/curtailed or anything drastic - however the behaviour of certain people after the consumption of this stuff is another issue.

Why should taxes go up? There'll be less smoking related illnesses in the future therefore there will be a reduction in the NHS bill (this money will be freed up for other illnesses).

Immigrants and the like are again another issue.

Personally, as an ex-smoker, I'm glad about the forthcoming ban because at least my kids will have a better chance of living in a smoke free atmosphere than I or most of us did - I don't want to see them coughing & spluttering and smelling of tobacco. We are finally waking up to the fact that it is an anti-social habit. When New York banned smoking in public places, yes - the bars/restaurants etc were quiet - now however business is on the rise again. These places are just going to have to 'manage' their way over the short term period until people start going out again.

I could add a bit more but might save a bit for spare later! :lol:

[sharriso74]

I think the only bars that are really going to lose out are the ones that are already no smoking. At the moment they've got a niche market once all the bars go the same way they'll have to find another way to compete.

As a smoker I can understand the reasons behind wanting a ban, just means I won't smoke or drink as much as I'll have to keep popping outside.

[Foey]

Why should taxes go up? There'll be less smoking related illnesses in the future therefore there will be a reduction in the NHS bill (this money will be freed up for other illnesses).




At last count the total taxes raised from tobacco sales topped 50 billion pounds, now that ammount compared to the total cost to the NHS for smoking related illness 28 billion leaves quite a shortfall + all mp's being right to55ers would add a bit extra to line their own coffers.

[Samurai]

I'm a none smoker know but i don't think it is the issue that they are banning smoking, but more to the fact that people are unhappy with the fact that there right of choice has been taken away,

Yes none smokers don't like secondhand smoke but they have a choice to go somewhere else, but there are taking away the choice of the smoker, he can't go smoke somewhere else (other than privet property).

I see it as an infringement of our human right to choice.

that's my opinion anyway

[sharriso74]

What I find amusing is that the EU spends £50 million a year on anti smoking campaigns and spends £600 million on subsidies for tobacco farmers

[wyrdness]

Yes none smokers don't like secondhand smoke but they have a choice to go somewhere else, but there are taking away the choice of the smoker, he can't go smoke somewhere else (other than privet property).

So non-smokers who don't like smoky bars and coming home stinking like an ashtray can 'go somewhere else'. Pray tell, where? I don't know any non-smoking pubs that I can go to.

Your 'right to smoke' ends where my 'right to breathe' begins.

[Stingo]

=D> =D>

[Foey]

BACK SOON, going for a ciggy.

[Stingo]

pmsl! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I think we will see more legislation like this come in as society becomes more selfish. If people don't want to be responsible for their actions the goverment will legislate more to force people to behave in an acceptable manner.

I'd have to completely disagree with this. As more legislation comes in, people are less likely to behave in an 'acceptable manner', not the other way round. How can you expect people to take responsibility when some git in whitehall keeps taking responsibility away from them?

The more you rules and regulations you force on people the less they'll think for themselves and the less likely they'll take responsibility for anything. You'll just end up with an entire society full of mindless idiots saying 'sorry guv, no law against that, not my problem'.

[Daimo]

I don't believe that the drinking of alcohol is going to be banned/curtailed or anything drastic - however the behaviour of certain people after the consumption of this stuff is another issue.

Why should taxes go up? There'll be less smoking related illnesses in the future therefore there will be a reduction in the NHS bill (this money will be freed up for other illnesses).

Immigrants and the like are again another issue.

Personally, as an ex-smoker, I'm glad about the forthcoming ban because at least my kids will have a better chance of living in a smoke free atmosphere than I or most of us did

Well thats the difference, I wouldn't take my children (when I have them) to a pub at all. Why would I take my children somewhere to watch me drink? Other drunks etc..... I wouldn't.

There are PLENTY of non smoking pubs. And the majority have smoking and non smoking sections.

Why will taxes go up?

Fags = HUGE revenue for government.
Less people buy fags, less income they are getting, and considering they are already over spending, this = More taxes to all.

Hospitals getting less patients... Maybe it will get a few less UK CITIZENS, but with all the new people deciding England is their new home, but i can garantee a LOT of these people arn't paying tax at all, yet are entitled to healthcare???? (Bit like Pikeys really)...

The amount the hospitals will save on Smoking patients and related illnesses will no where near cover the revenue the government gets every year through smoking...

Just think, all smokers who go out to the pub, most will buy a new box to go out.
So say 200 people in a pub, for arguments sake, 100 smoke. Out of those 100 people buying a new box of fags, only 10 buy a box to smoke outside the pub due to the new laws.

At £3 tax (ish) for every box of fags, that alone is already £270 alone, from ONE pub... Not to mention the millions of pubs/clubs about..........

Trust me, give it, mmmm i reckon 1-2 years and taxes will go up.........

[Samurai]

So non-smokers who don't like smoky bars and coming home stinking like an ashtray can 'go somewhere else'. Pray tell, where? I don't know any non-smoking pubs that I can go to.

Your 'right to smoke' ends where my 'right to breathe' begins.

there are non-smoking sections to pub, if that was kept i'm sure people would be happy, if you want to smoke you go in the venturlated smoking area and if not then go to the non-smoking area.

What is wrong with that?

[Nutkins]

I think it's great news and about bloody time too!

One in the eye for the smoking few, who think it's their god given "right" to smoke when and where they want with their "F#@k everybody else" attitude.
The one's whom smoke where they've been asked not to.
The one's who think it's the cool thing to do when socialising. There is nothing cool about having breath smelling like s#@t!
The one's who insist on lighting up in between courses in a restaurant, therefore removing any taste of their meal (although, I've heard smokers can't taste much).
The one's who, rather than blow their smoke in face of the person they're talking to, turn their head and blow it in your face instead.
The ones who forget there is a cancer-stick in their hand and wave it around like a magic wand, trying to turn you into cinders (Unlike Cinders, I've started off wearing nice clothes and ended up with holes in them).
The ones who smoke around children and have the cheek to bleat about their rights.
The ones who believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

<climbs down from the tall gee-gee>

About 10 years ago, California passed a law stating it was illegal to smoke in public, even in your back garden. A work mate of mine flew into a rage, on reading about it in the paper. He then turned on every non-smoker he could find and ranted about his rights and the rights of other smokers. When I questioned him about the health implications, he retorted "I don't care about anyone else .... but I wouldn't smoke around my grand-children, nor my wife, who is also a heavy smoker". So, some human life is more important than others?
Sadly, 4 years later, his wife died from lung cancer, which was due to her 40-a-day habit.
He never spoke the same way about smoking again.

[northwind]

They are trying to en-courage voting, but whats the point when it clearly doesn't get anywhere. Again, another prime example of the public Vs Government, and yet again, another prime example of the public being ignored....


Practically every survey that's been done showed the public in favour of a ban... Surveys of people actually in pubs dramatically so.

[northwind]

The more you rules and regulations you force on people the less they'll think for themselves and the less likely they'll take responsibility for anything. You'll just end up with an entire society full of mindless idiots saying 'sorry guv, no law against that, not my problem'.

Yup, I'm inclined to agree with that... But i don'tthink it's as clear-cut as either side would suggest. If you take away the need to think, then people will stop thinking it's true- but in this case, it's simply the case that a large number of people aren't acting reasonably, and so a laissez faire approach (which has been tried for years) just isn't working. I'd prefer if peope would always act reasonmably and responsibility, but the fact is there's always someone who doesn't.

[Stingo]

Strong words Mr Nutkins - but mucho truth in there rather than the oft argued %this & %that etc. It's not all down to money, it's not all down to choice of the individual - it's many things - one common factor has to be everybody's health, ultimately, whether you have one a day or 40.

If I go to a family style pub (when with the kids), I can choose to drink alcohol or not - I can rarely choose to have a smoke free area indoors. I can't wait to meet my mates down the pub and not have to worry about coughing up lung butter the next day.
:thumbsup:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The more you rules and regulations you force on people the less they'll think for themselves and the less likely they'll take responsibility for anything. You'll just end up with an entire society full of mindless idiots saying 'sorry guv, no law against that, not my problem'.

Yup, I'm inclined to agree with that... But i don'tthink it's as clear-cut as either side would suggest. If you take away the need to think, then people will stop thinking it's true- but in this case, it's simply the case that a large number of people aren't acting reasonably, and so a laissez faire approach (which has been tried for years) just isn't working. I'd prefer if peope would always act reasonmably and responsibility, but the fact is there's always someone who doesn't.

Yeah probably true.

I'm just dismayed that yet again the government has resorted to an all out ban. A ban should be a very last resort when everything else has been tried and fails. Alas, they are so utterly witless they're throwing our liberty away once more to cover up for their own incompetance.

[Daimo]

One in the eye for the smoking few, who think it's their god given "right" to smoke when and where they want with their "F#@k everybody else" attitude.

What MORE rights do non smokers have over smokers? Is a smoker a weirdo, a killer, a rapist etc? No, smokers have just as many rights as non smokers. FACT.

The one's whom smoke where they've been asked not to.

Disrespectfull. No time for them.

The one's who think it's the cool thing to do when socialising. There is nothing cool about having breath smelling like s#@t!

Says who? I dont think the users on here are between 10-18. I dont smoke, but if you read my previous comments, it explains. And ever heard of Chewing gum?

The one's who insist on lighting up in between courses in a restaurant, therefore removing any taste of their meal (although, I've heard smokers can't taste much).
I don't personnally know anyone who does this, everyone I know waits till after the meal?

The one's who, rather than blow their smoke in face of the person they're talking to, turn their head and blow it in your face instead.

In which case, say something. If your prepared to let someone blow smoke in your face and take it, then its your problem. If you are un-happy, say something.

The ones who forget there is a cancer-stick in their hand and wave it around like a magic wand, trying to turn you into cinders (Unlike Cinders, I've started off wearing nice clothes and ended up with holes in them).
Ummmm, well, only when rat arsed.... I've been known :oops:

But then how many drunks do you see fighting?

The ones who smoke around children and have the cheek to bleat about their rights.
No time for these people.

The ones who believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Well, tobacoo has been round for hundreds of years? But now its only becoming an issue..

About 10 years ago, California passed a law stating it was illegal to smoke in public, even in your back garden. A work mate of mine flew into a rage, on reading about it in the paper. He then turned on every non-smoker he could find and ranted about his rights and the rights of other smokers. When I questioned him about the health implications, he retorted "I don't care about anyone else .... but I wouldn't smoke around my grand-children, nor my wife, who is also a heavy smoker". So, some human life is more important than others?

I saw people smoking there only last year?
And yes, to some people human life is more important. Would you consider that scumbag imergrant whos claiming your taxes more or less important TO YOU than your own children? Its all respective. No matter what you think, to everyone, they will have their own ways and rights and you cannot change that.

Taking away someones right to smoke should not be allowed. Why should some suits who don't have any clue to the real world be allowed to decided what I can or cannot do.......

tbh, the actual Ban doesn't bother me too much as im not a drinker, but im angry that my right has been taken away by some suits. But its ok for these people to have affairs, sleep with prostitues etc....

But THEY know whats best for ME????? Thats almost laughable.... :lol:

[Stingo]

Because we live in a democracy where majority rules.

These are the same suits who presumably who have outlawed child pornography, uphold the law that murder is punishable by a lengthy prison sentence and so on. We all have to do things that we don't like, buying a TV licence or paying Road Tax etc but we have to get on with it because mostly, no amount of moaning is going to change things.

Perhaps with smokers smoking less, they may now be able to afford larger cars/bikes and therefore they will contribute more to the taxman by other cunningly hidden avenues. :D

[sharriso74]

Perhaps with smokers smoking less, they may now be able to afford larger cars/bikes and therefore they will contribute more to the taxman by other cunningly hidden avenues. :D

And create more pollution that is also bad for your health

[timwilky]

2 years ago I was in a local "Posh" restaurant to celebrate my wifes birthday. There was a party of 4 on an adjacent table eating their starters when we sat down. As our starters arrived a woman lit up, using a side plate as an ashtray. I asked her to please either stop or move out of the dining area. They laughed told me to feck off and she continued. They then ate their main courses and she lit up again as our main course arrived. At which point I got up and told her that she had ruined my meal and our night out.

One of the guys with her then threatened me outside. No problem. I then had to contend with my wife crying. A bullying prat, and a restaurant manager demanding I pay for food that was unedible and I had sent back as it was tainted.

Because a minority of smokers are anti social with their habits, the majority of them are tared with the same brush. When I started this thread I stated that I was an ex smoker. When I did smoke. I would never be as inconsiderate enough as to do it in a restaurant or in the company of non smokers. I have been on aircraft where passengers have attempted to smoke in the toilets.

As I initially said. I view the proposed legislation as unenforceable. It will end up as at the landlord discretion which is perhaps how it should have been in the first place. Lets face it, if 80% of your customers smoke, of course your going to let them.

[Daimo]

Oh I agree in that sense that people may have more money in their pocket, but again, thats another excuse to raise taxes..... Economy....

Im not moaning (may seem it), but as said, it seems the internet is the only REAL place where topics can be discussed without consiquences.

Thing is, its not like other things, such as sayyyy, speeding or smoking majerana (?sp). These things, if you really want to, you can still do and get away with.

You simply cannot smoke in the pubs anymore, and that right being taken away is unfair. As you say, no amount of moaning or debating will change that....

Its more the fact the government are just allowed to do it........ Its like having big brother but for real. As if all the cameras etc everywhere isn't enough.

[Stingo]

Perhaps with smokers smoking less, they may now be able to afford larger cars/bikes and therefore they will contribute more to the taxman by other cunningly hidden avenues. :D

And create more pollution that is also bad for your health


There always has to be a downside!!

Electric motorbike anyone?? Windpowered perhaps... :?:

[sharriso74]

Perhaps with smokers smoking less, they may now be able to afford larger cars/bikes and therefore they will contribute more to the taxman by other cunningly hidden avenues. :D

And create more pollution that is also bad for your health


There always has to be a downside!!

Electric motorbike anyone?? Windpowered perhaps... :?:

After what I had to eat lastnight defo wind power this morning :oops:

[Daimo]

2 years ago I was in a local "Posh" restaurant to celebrate my wifes birthday. There was a party of 4 on an adjacent table eating their starters when we sat down. As our starters arrived a woman lit up, using a side plate as an ashtray. I asked her to please either stop or move out of the dining area. They laughed told me to feck off and she continued. They then ate their main courses and she lit up again as our main course arrived. At which point I got up and told her that she had ruined my meal and our night out.

One of the guys with her then threatened me outside. No problem. I then had to contend with my wife crying. A bullying prat, and a restaurant manager demanding I pay for food that was unedible and I had sent back as it was tainted.


I'd have proceeded to "open a can of whoop ass" on them then, or simply grabbed the fags and stubbed them out on her top or something lol.

But thats my age mentality coming through :lol:

[Nutkins]

Says who? I dont think the users on here are between 10-18. I dont smoke, but if you read my previous comments, it explains. And ever heard of Chewing gum?

Firstly, I did say "the smoking few" and secondly, my comments weren't directed at anyone on the forum.

The one's who, rather than blow their smoke in face of the person they're talking to, turn their head and blow it in your face instead.

In which case, say something. If your prepared to let someone blow smoke in your face and take it, then its your problem. If you are un-happy, say something

Eh? It's not about letting someone do it, or telling them no to. I shouldn't have to say something! It's the fact, that some people have the lack of respect to do it in the first place.

[Stingo]

Can of Whoop Ass? :lol: :lol: :lol: pmsl :lol: :lol: :lol:
Where's my packet of Tena man when I need it? :oops:

[Filipe M.]

The one's who, rather than blow their smoke in face of the person they're talking to, turn their head and blow it in your face instead.

In which case, say something. If your prepared to let someone blow smoke in your face and take it, then its your problem. If you are un-happy, say something

Eh? It's not about letting someone do it, or telling them no to. I shouldn't have to say something! It's the fact, that some people have the lack of respect to do it in the first place.

Precisely... :roll:

[Daimo]

Yeah, but people walk accross the road with crossings 5 meters to the right of them.

Many people cannot drive, but as a good driver, i cannot do anything.

There are many things in life that we HAVE to deal with. IMO, i just feel that this isn't one of them.

i.e, as said, im happy to go to a pub, not smoke, but at some point in that 4-5 hour session, I may want a fag, but its raining and windy outside? Why for a smoker would that person be allowed any less rights than a non smoker. Why can there not be a room for smokers, with a door etc? Smokers can smoke in the dry, non smokers get a smoke free enviroment. That way, depending on the pub size and customer type, smoking and non smoking rooms can be fitted to acomodate the majority per pub/club.

But the thing is, if your a smoker, you dont have that right. Your being told what you can and can't do, and thats a major issue.

[timwilky]

BTW how did I stop?


I woke up one morning and decided that I didn't want to smoke anymore. Previously I had failed to give up because others were pressuring me into it.

You cannot use a stick to make people do things. They have to want to do it.

[Nutkins]

i.e, as said, im happy to go to a pub, not smoke, but at some point in that 4-5 hour session, I may want a fag, but its raining and windy outside? Why for a smoker would that person be allowed any less rights than a non smoker. Why can there not be a room for smokers, with a door etc? Smokers can smoke in the dry, non smokers get a smoke free enviroment. That way, depending on the pub size and customer type, smoking and non smoking rooms can be fitted to acomodate the majority per pub/club.

Wouldn't like to be the non-smoking, glass collector.

[Topaz]

Will this mean that instead of binge-drinking there will be binge-smoking?

A.

[Daimo]

[quote=Daimo]quote]

Wouldn't like to be the non-smoking, glass collector.

No, but that person would CHOOSE to be a glass collector.

Thats something lots are missing here, freedom of CHOICE.

A glass collector can choose not to be a glass collector. They can be a waiter, or a box packer, or anything. They have that choice.

You work in a bar, you have to expect smokers. Only since yesterday would anyone have to think "hmmm, i want to be a barman, in a non smoking pub".

Theres 3 pubs in a 8 mile odd radius where I live, 1 of those 3 pubs is a total non smoking pub..... So they are about.

If you don't want to be around smoke, why be a barman/barwomen???? Always have been smoked in. That person can choose to do another job, its not like there are limitations to what you can do....

Smokers simply do not have the choice, they have been forced to deal with this.

[philipMac]

AFAIK exactly the same ban was brought into Ireland a good while back, to much the same discussion.
Ireland is not the most law abideing place in the world, yet the ban had ~100% uptake overnight. Almost without exception, it was completely upheld.

The reason for this seemed to be: most people wanted it.

The pub revenues dipped slightly, and then got back on track. Cant keep us of the drink.

Also, the argument that ciggies pay the govt money; not true. Health costs of attending to smokers out wieghs the the tax revenues.

[Jelster]

I'm a none smoker know but i don't think it is the issue that they are banning smoking, but more to the fact that people are unhappy with the fact that there right of choice has been taken away,

Yes none smokers don't like secondhand smoke but they have a choice to go somewhere else, but there are taking away the choice of the smoker, he can't go smoke somewhere else (other than privet property).

I see it as an infringement of our human right to choice.

that's my opinion anyway


Leigh, that's complete crap....

I don't go to pubs & bars BECAUSE I don't want to be covered in smoke. This way smokers can still go, but not to smoke. There, problem solved....

Why should I be subjected to somebody smoking next to me when I'm eating? My only choice is to sit there or leave, fantastic evening that turned out to be.

Smoking is as much anti social as it is a "social" pastime....

.

[philipMac]

I'm a none smoker know but i don't think it is the issue that they are banning smoking, but more to the fact that people are unhappy with the fact that there right of choice has been taken away,

Yes none smokers don't like secondhand smoke but they have a choice to go somewhere else, but there are taking away the choice of the smoker, he can't go smoke somewhere else (other than privet property).

I see it as an infringement of our human right to choice.

that's my opinion anyway


Leigh, that's complete crap....

I don't go to pubs & bars BECAUSE I don't want to be covered in smoke. Smokers can still go, but not to smoke. There, problem solved....

Smoking is as much anti social as it is a "social" pastime....

.

When I go to bars, I am worried that my bike will be stolen. So I bring it in with me. I am also worried about starting her. So I leave her running in the bar.

Then they brought in the no-running motor bike ban into effect.

Ooh. I was so angry. I saw it as a violation of my human rights to run my sv in my local pub!

[Nutkins]

I'm reading about rights and freedom of choice. Seriously, do they really outweigh people's health? Surely, the decision to make our society healthier is more important.

[Jelster]

But you have the choice of going to a bar. If they're all smokey I don't really have that choice.

Stop smoking and use the money you've saved for a decent chain for your bike. That's your problem solved too :lol:

.

[Nutkins]

Stop smoking and use the money you've saved for a decent chain for your bike. That's your problem solved too

The strongest arguement for the ban that I've read so far. :lol:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I'm a none smoker know but i don't think it is the issue that they are banning smoking, but more to the fact that people are unhappy with the fact that there right of choice has been taken away,

Yes none smokers don't like secondhand smoke but they have a choice to go somewhere else, but there are taking away the choice of the smoker, he can't go smoke somewhere else (other than privet property).

I see it as an infringement of our human right to choice.

that's my opinion anyway


Leigh, that's complete crap....

I don't go to pubs & bars BECAUSE I don't want to be covered in smoke. Smokers can still go, but not to smoke. There, problem solved....

Smoking is as much anti social as it is a "social" pastime....

.

When I go to bars, I am worried that my bike will be stolen. So I bring it in with me. I am also worried about starting her. So I leave her running in the bar.

Then they brought in the no-running motor bike ban into effect.

Ooh. I was so angry. I saw it as a violation of my human rights to run my sv in my local pub!

I doubt the land lord would stand for that, it's his private property, his decision to make. This is something that people seem to be forgetting. Whether a pub allows smoking or not shouldnt be anyone elses business but the land lords. If smoking is so horrible, then surely making their pub non smoking is something land lords would go for by their own accord as it would make them more profitable?

[Demonz]

Now we just need to get smokers to stop standing at the entrance to the office, bus stops so there is no need to walk through haze to get through :roll:

But seriously - I do think its great we can go to a cafe or restaurant and not have to worry about someone elses ignorance spoiling it. The only people to blaim for this law is smokers themselves - if they showed some respect when smoking in these areas maybe they would have got a better deal.

[sharriso74]

That would only work for the old style privately owned pubs. Also even the privately owned ones are still a place of work so fall under all the leagal obligations as anywhere else.

The bit I will miss most is having a smoke after a nice meal with a glass of brandy.

[Filipe M.]

But seriously - I do think its great we can go to a cafe or restaurant and not have to worry about someone elses ignorance spoiling it. The only people to blaim for this law is smokers themselves - if they showed some respect when smoking in these areas maybe they would have got a better deal.

Nicely put. =D>

[Foey]

Also, the argument that ciggies pay the govt money; not true. Health costs of attending to smokers out wieghs the the tax revenues.


Utter crap, as previously stated the revenue from taxation on tobacco products in the uk totals £50 billion, cost to NHS to treat smoking related illness £28 billion, i make that a surpluss of £22 billion, these are figures quoted by a serving MP.

[Daimo]

Leigh, that's complete crap....

I don't go to pubs & bars BECAUSE I don't want to be covered in smoke. This way smokers can still go, but not to smoke. There, problem solved....

Why should I be subjected to somebody smoking next to me when I'm eating? My only choice is to sit there or leave, fantastic evening that turned out to be.

Smoking is as much anti social as it is a "social" pastime....

.

As mentioned above, most restaurants are non smoking now so thats not a reason at all. If not, they are split into smoking and non smoking sections. If you were THAT concerned about it, you would ask to be as far away from the smoking section as possible? Thats just using commen sense?

I eat in pubs still that are smoking, but are not smokey?

"Smoking is as much anti social as it is a "social" pastime.... "

Totally agree, but now its gone from smoking/non smoking places to Non smoking places period. This is unfair on smokers is it not as they do not have the rights of a non smoker?

Sorry mate, your in a wheelchair. You can come in, but you have to use the stairs????

That person is in a wheelchair, they don't have a choice. Just an example, no offence meant to anyone disabled.

[wyrdness]

Whenever I hear smokers going on about their 'rights', I'm always reminded of this story which was posted on the net by someone from the US:

I think the war between the smokers and non-smokers is heating up a bit. I went into a restaurant for lunch the other day and, as is my practice, requested a table in the "no smoking" section. They seated me, and I went about the business of ordering and eating my food.

Somewhere between the clam chowder and a club sandwich, I caught the smell of nearby burning tobacco. Upon looking around, I noticed the man in the booth next to me smoking a freshly lit cigarette.

Overcoming my natural reticence regarding confrontation, I spoke to the man. "Excuse me, sir, but, when you came in, did you ask to be seated in the no-smoking section?"

"Yes, I don't like the smell of smoke when I am eating any more than anyone else."

I asked, "Then why are you smoking that cigarette?"

"I've finished eating."

Silly me, it was obvious to the most casual observer.

I called the server over and made her aware of the situation. She pointed out to the man that he was smoking in a No Smoking section (I suspect this was not a startling revelation) and went away with his assurance that he was just leaving.

Of course he didn't leave until he had finished that cigarette and lit another. But at least he did finally go.

Apparently he had noticed the motorcycle helmet and jacket I was wearing when I came in, because in a minute or so, I noticed him eyeing the Harley parked by the front door. He took out a small notebook, wrote something on a leaf from it, tore off the note, and placed it between the seat and gas tank.

His next action took me completely off guard. He looked straight in the window at me, then put his foot against the gas tank and shoved the motorcycle over on its side. He then spun around and ran smack into a very large, bearded fellow who apparently owned the Harley.

That which ensued netted him at least one broken bone and hopefully a little jail time. After the police had come and gone, I helped the bearded gentleman right his bike, and noticed the note the man had left. I unfolded it and read: "This will teach you to mess with smoker's rights."

I laughed and handed the note to the cigar-chewing biker. I then went around to the other side of the building, got on my BMW, and went back to work.

[Daimo]

I do think its great we can go to a cafe or restaurant and not have to worry about someone elses ignorance spoiling it. The only people to blaim for this law is smokers themselves - if they showed some respect when smoking in these areas maybe they would have got a better deal.

Is that the smokers fault for purchasing selling a highly funding government item thats advertised everywhere, or the owner of the business for not providing adiquate seperated smoking facilities?????

I mean, theres plenty of cafes out there as well....

If the government were THAT bothered, there would be a complete ban on smoking, they would take fags off the shelves, and NOT increase any taxes.......

Can you see that happening? I very much doubt it.

Next up we will be asked if we want to go to war with Iraq, all refuse, but go anyway...... oh wait.... Then we have to pay for what THEY have done....

Same thing is going to happen here.....

PS.. Wyrdness - Now thats taking things too far. :lol:

[Demonz]

I do think its great we can go to a cafe or restaurant and not have to worry about someone elses ignorance spoiling it. The only people to blaim for this law is smokers themselves - if they showed some respect when smoking in these areas maybe they would have got a better deal.

Is that the smokers fault for purchasing selling a highly funding government item thats advertised everywhere, or the owner of the business for not providing adiquate seperated smoking facilities?????

I mean, theres plenty of cafes out there as well....

If the government were THAT bothered, there would be a complete ban on smoking, they would take fags off the shelves, and NOT increase any taxes.......

Can you see that happening? I very much doubt it.

Next up we will be asked if we want to go to war with Iraq, all refuse, but go anyway...... oh wait.... Then we have to pay for what THEY have done....

Same thing is going to happen here.....



Would you agree that this law would save Non-Smoker lives :?:

[Dicky Ticker]

The law No fox hunting total disregard and no enforcement
Smoking who is going to enforce it???

Surprise Houses of Parliament classed as a royal palace so it doesn't appy there

[Daimo]

Would you agree that this law would save Non-Smoker lives :?:

No i don't agree at all.

A non smoker can still go to many pubs and not have to put up with smoke, but still die of cancer (most likley liver cancer instead of lung)...

Passive smoking will not kill you. It MAY give you some problems, but then you would need to be a pretty hard pub go-er to be in that situation, in which case your more likley to get liver cancer.....

Drinking is just as bad as smoking. So if they want to keep things at a happy medium, ban smoking, ban drinking, pubs would close, UK would loose money, welcome to the depression.....................

But of course they won't, they won't make their money............

[Daimo]

Surprise Houses of Parliament classed as a royal palace so it doesn't appy there

Yeah funny, i've read the same.

They can still smoke in the houses of parliment (in the set areas).....

Wonder how many of those parliment members go to the pub every night after work for 3-4 hours like millions of UK people do???? So how many of those members does it effect? None!!

[keithd]

Would you agree that this law would save Non-Smoker lives :?:

No i don't agree at all.

.....

i'm sure the family of the late Roy Castle would have something to say about that

to name but one person who died of passive smoking

[philipMac]

Also, the argument that ciggies pay the govt money; not true. Health costs of attending to smokers out wieghs the the tax revenues.


Utter crap, as previously stated the revenue from taxation on tobacco products in the uk totals £50 billion, cost to NHS to treat smoking related illness £28 billion, i make that a surpluss of £22 billion, these are figures quoted by a serving MP.

Not according to the worldbank. I doubt they are particularly bias.

World Bank group.
The Economics of Tobacco control.
DO SMOKERS KNOW THEIR RISKS AND BEAR THEIR COSTS?
http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter3.htm

Quote: "Recent reviews that take account of the growing number of tobacco-attributable diseases and other factors conclude that, overall, smokers' lifetime costs in high-income countries are somewhat greater than those of nonsmokers, despite their earlier deaths...
.
.
In sum, smokers clearly impose direct costs, such as health damage, on nonsmokers. There are probably also financial costs, for example in healthcare, although they are more difficult to identify or quantify."

Basically they seem to be saying; First world countries: not clear, but probable that it
costs society money. Less developed countries: Definately does.

But, I mean, if a politician says otherwise, it must be true, right? :wink:

[Jelster]

As mentioned above, most restaurants are non smoking now so thats not a reason at all. If not, they are split into smoking and non smoking sections. If you were THAT concerned about it, you would ask to be as far away from the smoking section as possible? Thats just using commen sense?

Not in the restaurant my wife had booked, and paid a deposit for which we were in last night... That's fairly up to date I think....

I eat in pubs still that are smoking, but are not smokey?

But there is nothing to stop somebody sitting at the table next to you and lighting up is there ? See, I have NO CHOICE if they do.

"Smoking is as much anti social as it is a "social" pastime.... "

Totally agree, but now its gone from smoking/non smoking places to Non smoking places period. This is unfair on smokers is it not as they do not have the rights of a non smoker?

A smoker can chose whether to light up or not, I don't have the choice of them not doing it.

Sorry mate, your in a wheelchair. You can come in, but you have to use the stairs????

That person is in a wheelchair, they don't have a choice. Just an example, no offence meant to anyone disabled.

There's laws about that too.....

My point is that I have far much less choice because I don't smoke, and you think that's fair ???

Have you lost both of your parents to smoking ? Well I have and it's not nice and NOBODY should be able to subject me to their dirty, stinking foul habbit unless I choose to let them. But then unless you're a true non smoker you wouldn't understand this.

End of =;

[philipMac]

8) Jelster.

I mean, its pretty cut and dry.

Smoke, second or first hand is almost certainly dangerous to humans. (This is about as sure as the statement "evolution works". Nucases/charlatans/Big Tobacco may sugest otherwise, but, basically who cares.)

A bar is a place of work.

There are laws and measures in place to keep people, who are at work, safe.

=> Smoking is banned in these work places.

Its that simple.

Saying, "get a new job", is like saying, "whadaya mean you want ear/eye/breathing protection at the local dusty asbestos factory, get a new job."

[Demonz]

Would you agree that this law would save Non-Smoker lives :?:

No i don't agree at all.


Then I can understand why you think this law is so bad for Smokers. Sorry I could say more but I think you need to get educated on some of the facts about smoking. That warning mark on the packet - it really is true you know.

[sharriso74]

Moving away slightly from the rights or wrong of the ban. I wonder if anyone has seen figures for tabbaco sales say in Ireland before and after the ban?

[haggis]

AFAIK exactly the same ban was brought into Ireland a good while back, to much the same discussion.
Ireland is not the most law abideing place in the world, yet the ban had ~100% uptake overnight. Almost without exception, it was completely upheld.

The reason for this seemed to be: most people wanted it.

The pub revenues dipped slightly, and then got back on track. Cant keep us of the drink.

Phillip, i was there on holiday at the time. Going from smokey Scottish pubs to their smoke-free ones was a stark revelation. The few who stood outside for a puff didn't bother me in the slightest and inside was just as busy as ever according to the bar staff. They were particularly pleased about the ban. I liked the fact that I could smell and taste the Guiness and Bushmills etc. instead of thick acrid smoke.

Yes, there was a couple of bars that said they would continue to allow it. I was in one of them in Galway, word had got around that the landlord was having a smoking area upstairs and my mate is a smoker. The non-smoking downstars bar was quiet. Upstairs every smoker in Galway was crammed in, gleefully puffing away. Then a local news crew turned up with cameras and the landlord defiantly puffed away, and ranted on about his rights etc. etc. until the Garda pulled him to one side to re-think the situation. That night the story was on the news, along with the fact he was to be fined 2000Euros a day.

Unmanageable law, I think not. That was a lot of bar takings lost to stupid defiance. You see smokers, you can't hide away from this or ignore it and carry on. You stand out too much. In six months time even you will wonder what all the fuss was about.


Someone mentioned why not have a smoking room? Well why would the Gov't want to allow that, we want you to be in as uncomfortable a situation as possible to encourage you to stop thus relieving pressure on the NHS (in terms of cash and manhours) spent on smokers. If it's a choice between stubbing out and going to the pub for a drink and a chat (pub's are the only places to buy and consume drink, not smoke!)or going to the pub door to have a smoke and get hypothermia then the choice is not that difficult. You might as well stay at home, since you're not allowed to take your drink outside with the fag anyway.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I'm utterly amazed that anyone is naive enough to think the government actualy gives a flying **** about peoples health.

[philipMac]

I'm utterly amazed that anyone is naive enough to think the government actualy gives a flying **** about peoples health.

:lol: ha ha. Alright then... tell us the real reason.

Its the same reason they arent telling us about the space alien landings, right?

[amarko5]

I'm utterly amazed that anyone is naive enough to think the government actualy gives a flying **** about peoples health.


Spot on :thumbsup: it's another one of those PC things to do at the moment.

smokers and non smokers can easily co exist by seperation.

I smoke (cos i choose to do so) I enjoy a good meal in a non smoking resteraunt and rightly so (why should i impose on others especially when eating or drinking) the problem i have with this decision is this, a properly constructed smoking cubicle with extraction to the fresh air is not going to impinge on anyone who is a non smoker.

I really cannot see what all the fuss is about there are already non smoking pubs and smoking pubs choose the one you want to visit and be done with it.

how many of you drive a diesel car and you churn out the most harmful polution to anyone. now then should they pass a law saying that a smoker objects to you driving on the roads near him.

it's totally ludicrous the choice should have been left there, the cubicle idea should defo have been the way to go then any employees would not need to suffer the smoke should they not wish too.

and here is another thing to think about 20 or 30 people hanging around the doors of most pubs clubs etc more on street trouble in my opinion.

and also how many females drinks are gonna be spiked as they go outside to smoke but cant take the drink with them.

it will happen you wait and see.

[philipMac]

I'm utterly amazed that anyone is naive enough to think the government actualy gives a flying **** about peoples health.


Spot on :thumbsup: it's another one of those PC things to do at the moment.



Bloody right old chap. Political correctness gone too far.

They'll be giving women the vote before you know where we are.

[amarko5]

Motorcycle riders are 17% more likely to be a burden on the public health service. and could possible cause injury to non motorcycle riders.

so next on the political agenda is a limit of 125cc wind up and go scooters. and only if you have spent 3,000 quid on training and self inflating dayglo orange jumpsuits.

or even a total ban :roll:

now is anyone going to be upset by this :lol:

perhaps you can now see where personal choice and freedom to smoke is worth fighting for :wink:

[philipMac]

Motorcycle riders are 17% more likely to be a burden on the public health service. and could possible cause injury to non motorcycle riders.

so next on the political agenda is a limit of 125cc wind up and go scooters. and only if you have spent 3,000 quid on training and self inflating dayglo orange jumpsuits.

or even a total ban :roll:

now is anyone going to be upset by this :lol:

perhaps you can now see where personal choice and freedom to smoke is worth fighting for :wink:

Analogy doesnt hold up mate. People are not being forced to work in rooms, breathing in exhaust fumes from bikes (in the UK).

Which is the case now with ciggies.

[Gnan]

could apply the same analogy to speeding :D

[amarko5]

Analogy doesnt hold up mate. People are not being forced to work in rooms, breathing in exhaust fumes from bikes (in the UK).

Which is the case now with ciggies.

neither does that comment :wink:

I think the word to use here is that people who work in smokey rooms knew that those conditions applied from the onset. and should they not wish to work under those conditions then alternative locations or employment should be sought.

I still believe the ban is ridiculous and could have been avoided by the use of seperation / cubicles / rooms.

anyway ive had my 2p's worth . there will never be an ideal world no matter what.

it just means i will be a sadder more lonely unsociable individual as i will stay at home and drink instead of going our and socialising. :P :wink: :lol:

[Biker Biggles]

I agree with the ban on smoking in enclosed spaces and in similar vein I did agree with the ban on hunting.What worries me is the obsession our politicians have with banning things generally.As we slide back into authoritarianism I'd be happy to see my personal views on both of the above topics overidden in the interests of stopping the damn politicians from nannying us to death. :twisted:

[northwind]

[quote=philipMac]
I think the word to use here is that people who work in smokey rooms knew that those conditions applied from the onset. and should they not wish to work under those conditions then alternative locations or employment should be sought.


Because it really is exactly that simple to get a job, isn't it? Just decide to get one, and there you go. Working at the bottom of the bar trade is rubbish- it's poorly paid, bad hours and pretty bad conditions, generally. if they could easily go and get a job elsewhere, they already would have.

The analogy was brought earlier for other health and safety- if you didn't want to breathe asbestos dust, well, why did you get a job in a dangerous factory?

[philipMac]

Analogy doesnt hold up mate. People are not being forced to work in rooms, breathing in exhaust fumes from bikes (in the UK).

Which is the case now with ciggies.

anyway ive had my 2p's worth . there will never be an ideal world no matter what.

it just means i will be a sadder more lonely unsociable individual as i will stay at home and drink instead of going our and socialising. :P :wink: :lol:

You're right mate. But it will be a sad day the day we stop trying to make it better.

Nice chatting with you bud. Drive safe.

Philip.

[amarko5]

[quote=philipMac]
I think the word to use here is that people who work in smokey rooms knew that those conditions applied from the onset. and should they not wish to work under those conditions then alternative locations or employment should be sought.


Because it really is exactly that simple to get a job, isn't it? Just decide to get one, and there you go. Working at the bottom of the bar trade is rubbish- it's poorly paid, bad hours and pretty bad conditions, generally. if they could easily go and get a job elsewhere, they already would have.

The analogy was brought earlier for other health and safety- if you didn't want to breathe asbestos dust, well, why did you get a job in a dangerous factory?

I am aware it is NOT THAT SIMPLE to get a job :wink: but it's still a choice is'nt it :wink:

whereas a smoker who wishes to go out and socialise now has NO choice :roll:

that's the point I am making :roll:

it's your's and mine choice to ride the motorcycle of our choosing / affordability now if you were banned from doing so would that be correct. :?:

when i am out eating i object to body odour and people farting :? are they going to ban that next :?:

i have had to work in a situation in the past where i would retch everyday from an individuals bodily odours. if seperate (airtight cubicles had been available) then there would have been no issues would there :P :lol: :lol: :lol:

[philipMac]

I think the word to use here is that people who work in smokey rooms knew that those conditions applied from the onset. and should they not wish to work under those conditions then alternative locations or employment should be sought.


:shock: Just in case people get the wrong idea, I didnt write that... thats an amarko5 quote

[amarko5]

I think the word to use here is that people who work in smokey rooms knew that those conditions applied from the onset. and should they not wish to work under those conditions then alternative locations or employment should be sought.


Because it really is exactly that simple to get a job, isn't it? Just decide to get one, and there you go. Working at the bottom of the bar trade is rubbish- it's poorly paid, bad hours and pretty bad conditions, generally. if they could easily go and get a job elsewhere, they already would have.

The analogy was brought earlier for other health and safety- if you didn't want to breathe asbestos dust, well, why did you get a job in a dangerous factory?

:shock: Just in case people get the wrong idea, I didnt write that... thats an amarko5 quote

It was northwind that screwed up the quote system :P :wink:

[northwind]

whereas a smoker who wishes to go out and socialise now has NO choice :roll:

Eh, yes they do. Go out, or don't. If they go out and want a fag, step outside.

[Peter Henry]

Well frankly I agree that smoking in a situation where it can impinge on the enjoyment or health of others is basically wrong and very selfish.

But moving on from the smoking issue...what about outlawing the clandestine breaking of wind in restaurants and pubs? Some may laugh but is that not really also something totally disgusting?

Not pleasant to have the most toxic of stenches wafting toward your nostrils when just about to tuck in to an expensive meal is it?

It is long over due when the gussets of under wear would have a membrane that emits a pall of smoke when the guilty person has passed one. Then it would hopefully be embarassing to the perp as people could actually see the source of the stink! They might then be able to take evasive action.

As I have derailed I am going to continue...

When first learning Spanish my curious mind often sort the "rude" words in my new language. I would ask..."Well how would you say this?",etc. I found it helped to keep the learning interesting. However when enquiring about how you would ask someone if they had parped...the answer tickled me so much.


In Spanish one uses the verb-Tirar which means-to throw! So basically you are asking someone if they had thrown a f*rt?! Sorry but to my 12 year old boy sense of humour I found that so funny,as I pictured people running around the room having caught one in their hand ready to unleash it on some unsuspecting soul!


*Mod Police...Have a word please!* :oops: :oops:

[Biker Biggles]

Yes,quite,step outside.Unless you work for an increasing number of firms who ban their employees from smoking anywhere on their premises.The NHS has just introduced this,meaning that nobody can smoke on any land owned or operated by the NHS,including if you are standing outside.This is what I mean by authoritarianism.It is no longer defending the rights of non smokers to be protected from the fumes of others,it is purely directed at controlling the freedom of the individual smoker because "we know best"We are sucked in by popular legislation at first and lulled into complacency.Then they start to control the rest of our lives by stealth.You heard the warnings here first. :shock: :lol:

[Biker Biggles]

PH you absolute bustid,you derailed my rant.I fart in your general direction.I'll do it now before they ban it. :lol: