NationStates Jolt Archive

That's a pretty poor quality petition. It should at least say why you should, in their opinion, be allowed to smoke in pubs.


No way I'd sign it btw, even if I was a UK resident.


Also, my thread, mwahahaha

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/prosmoking/

We need more signatures - pass on to any smokers who think the total ban in enclosed public spaces is wrong. I signed up at the beginning but more help is needed.

i think its a good ban. privacy of your own home/car/private property? fine. public spaces? not fine.

i won't be signing and i hope it gets nowhere.

We need more signatures - pass on to any smokers who think the total ban in enclosed public spaces is wrong. Why is it wrong?

I'm glad I live in a democarcy where such intellectual giants have a say...

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/prosmoking/

We need more signatures - pass on to any smokers who think the total ban in enclosed public spaces is wrong. I signed up at the beginning but more help is needed.


Shit man how can it be wrong?

Meh, I'm glad Ireland's had this ban for a while now. It really improved things a lot, in more than one way. :)

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/prosmoking/

We need more signatures - pass on to any smokers who think the total ban in enclosed public spaces is wrong. I signed up at the beginning but more help is needed.
Considering more people don't smoke than do, I doubt that's going to go very far.

Plus, I'm in favour of the ban anyway. I believe my right not to be given cancer, pheumonia, bronchitis and stink like hell trumps the smoker's 'right' to light up. Tobacco is the biggest killer in the UK of all drugs, including Alcohol and other illegal drugs (by a factor of 100, according today's Mirror) and costs the most to the NHS. The less we have people forced to smoke passively, the better.

I think all drugs should be legalized, but I'm not going to encourage anyone to use any of them. If anything I'd prefer it if nobody did any of it for the most part.

But yeah, smoke at your own place.

Good petition.

No-one will pay a blind bit of notice to it though.

Considering more people don't smoke than do, I doubt that's going to go very far.

Plus, I'm in favour of the ban anyway. I believe my right not to be given cancer, pheumonia, bronchitis and stink like hell trumps the smoker's 'right' to light up. Tobacco is the biggest killer in the UK of all drugs, including Alcohol and other illegal drugs (by a factor of 100, according today's Mirror) and costs the most to the NHS. The less we have people forced to smoke passively, the better.

yeah, first i was against it because, even as a non-smoker, i liked the smell and i think it ads to the atmosphere. but it gets quite annoying when you can't go out without coughing the whole time.

I just seem to deisagree with breathing other people's smoke when I go out, sorry.

I signed it

Not a smoker but I think the manger should choose what we can and can’t do in his own business not some nanny state

yeah, first i was against it because, even as a non-smoker, i liked the smell and i think it ads to the atmosphere. but it gets quite annoying when you can't go out without coughing the whole time.

i'm not so bothered about pubs (even though i did used to hate the smokeyness, even when i smoked myself), but restaurants especially should be smoke-free. nothing worse than trying to taste food while someone else's smoke wafts up your nostrils.... :-S

but restaurants especially should be smoke-free.

so why not just go to no smoking restaurants* instead of bothering people?

*do remember that most restaurants where no smoking or at least had no smoking areas because it tends to bring in money folk

Even if I didn't disagree, what would be the point anyway? Petitions are utterly worthless.

i'm not so bothered about pubs (even though i did used to hate the smokeyness, even when i smoked myself), but restaurants especially should be smoke-free. nothing worse than trying to taste food while someone else's smoke wafts up your nostrils.... :-S

Yeah that's true. I was talking about pubs. anytime that i smell the a cigarette it makes me think about pubs and that makes me quite happy. I don't think it will be the same without the smoke, but i guess we'll get used to it in a few years.

Even if I didn't disagree, what would be the point anyway? Petitions are utterly worthless.

but you get to feel all activist-atios so you can secretly hate everyone around you :)

Even if I didn't disagree, what would be the point anyway? Petitions are utterly worthless.

Not quite true! I signed the no-to-ID-Cards and no-to-tracking-everybody's-cars petitions and Overlord Blair sent me an email explaining his point of view :)

What about the people that work there? Should they be fired or forced to work in smoky conditions so that the restaurant can take advantage of these so called 'money folk'?

should coal miners be forced out of mines because it gets too dusty? Tough really if they don’t want to work in smoky conditions McDonalds will hire them

Or how about bar staff should we stop serving alcohol because it endangers the people that work there?

so why not just go to no smoking restaurants* instead of bothering people?

*do remember that most restaurants where no smoking or at least had no smoking areas because it tends to bring in money folk

What about the people that work there? Should they be fired or forced to work in smoky conditions so that the restaurant can take advantage of these so called 'money folk'?

Hmm, when the ban comes into force, I'll have to give up my hobby of passive smoking....

Considering more people don't smoke than do, I doubt that's going to go very far.

Plus, I'm in favour of the ban anyway. I believe my right not to be given cancer, pheumonia, bronchitis and stink like hell trumps the smoker's 'right' to light up. Tobacco is the biggest killer in the UK of all drugs, including Alcohol and other illegal drugs (by a factor of 100, according today's Mirror) and costs the most to the NHS. The less we have people forced to smoke passively, the better.

Passive smoking is not really an issue if there are properly ventilated smoking areas. This ban is pushed through by an overbearing European parliament. It also contributes to passive smoking in open areas - walk past a city pub after the ban and there will be a smog of smoke outside, and fag ends. Outdoor eaters installed by pub owners to avoid the loss of trade will contribute to carbon immisions.

The Mirror is not really a valid forum for moderate discussion. The NHS gets Billions from taxes on smokers. Injuries incurred whilst exercising cost the NHS 5 times more that obecity - but they don't tax jogging!

On a final point - no-one escapes from life alive. What happened to live and let live? Pubs are not health farms they are places of relaxation and enjoyment. If proper ventilation was introduced (perhaps like emmosions test on cars for none smoking areas) there would be no problem. Smokers could enjoy themselves in the pub whilst helping to reduce the pension troubles and non smokers wouldn't have to write to the Daily Mail about smelling of burning leaves.

Bans like this are being enacted all over the US. I don't object so much to the bans as I do to the self-righteous ass hats who promote them. I would - and did - vote against such a ban for that reason alone.

Still, having said that, while it is legal to smoke tobacco, that doesn't necessarily give you the right to poison other people. Yourself? Sure, go right ahead. True, people can find other, smoke-free places to eat and drink, and wait-staff folks can simply choose not to work in smoky places, but the mood these days is to ban the public consumption of something that is demonstrably bad for you.

So, good luck with the petition and all, but I think the tide's running against you.

Not quite true! I signed the no-to-ID-Cards and no-to-tracking-everybody's-cars petitions and Overlord Blair sent me an email explaining his point of view :)

:eek: send him lots of emails with tittles like "nuclear missiles incoming" and "Mission accomplished” only to be filled with porn!

edit: come to think of it how did he get your email?

:eek: send him lots of emails with tittles like "nuclear missiles incoming" and "Mission accomplished” only to be filled with porn!

edit: come to think of it how did he get your email?

Because when you signed the petition you gave your e-mail address (it was an official petition on the government website).

In regards this petition. Ban smoking now!!

Bans like this are being enacted all over the US. I don't object so much to the bans as I do to the self-righteous ass hats who promote them. I would - and did - vote against such a ban for that reason alone.

Still, having said that, while it is legal to smoke tobacco, that doesn't necessarily give you the right to poison other people. Yourself? Sure, go right ahead. True, people can find other, smoke-free places to eat and drink, and wait-staff folks can simply choose not to work in smoky places, but the mood these days is to ban the public consumption of something that is demonstrably bad for you.

So, good luck with the petition and all, but I think the tide's running against you.

That's the whole point of having designated smoking areas. With proper ventilation the smokers can relax as well as the no-smokers. Please people - sign up to this petition or let people know about it. The government puts these things up but never advertises.

Because when you signed the petition you gave your e-mail address (it was an official petition on the government website).

In regards this petition. Ban smoking now!!

Ban the banners, I say. How is it we have come to a point where anythng that annoys anybody can be banned? A completely sterile life is no life at all.

That's the whole point of having designated smoking areas. With proper ventilation the smokers can relax as well as the no-smokers. Please people - sign up to this petition or let people know about it. The government puts these things up but never advertises.

Proper ventilation doesn't take the smell and all the smoke away, just some of it. Also, though having no smoking areas is good smoke doesn't know which area it's supposed to be in and has a habit of drifting making the no smoking areas no better than the smoking areas, not to mention the smokers who just plain ignore the no smoking signs.

no i've heard all the pro arguments and i won't sign. there is absolutely no reason why we can't take our addiction outside when we are in public places. although i will agree that a ban on smoking near windows and stuff is stupid - there is restriction in the interest of health and sociability and then there is outright ostracism, that crosses the line.

Proper ventilation doesn't take the smell and all the smoke away, just some of it. Also, though having no smoking areas is good smoke doesn't know which area it's supposed to be in and has a habit of drifting making the no smoking areas no better than the smoking areas, not to mention the smokers who just plain ignore the no smoking signs.

so go to a no-smoking pub its not that hard

Proper ventilation doesn't take the smell and all the smoke away, just some of it. Also, though having no smoking areas is good smoke doesn't know which area it's supposed to be in and has a habit of drifting making the no smoking areas no better than the smoking areas, not to mention the smokers who just plain ignore the no smoking signs.

Again - proper ventilation!! Smoking areas with negative preasure, strict enforcement of smoking areas etc. Pubs are shuting in the U.K at an astonishing rate. In Scotland when the ban was introduced SKY sports got 10,000 extra subscribers when the world cup was on. That's 10,000+ people staying away from pubs to watch the football in their own homes and having a cigg at the same time! No good being protected at work if you've no job.

Not quite true! I signed the no-to-ID-Cards and no-to-tracking-everybody's-cars petitions and Overlord Blair sent me an email explaining his point of view :)

what's so bad about ID-cards actually?

Ban the banners, I say. How is it we have come to a point where anythng that annoys anybody can be banned? A completely sterile life is no life at all.

it's not that smoking annoys, it's unhealthy. especially for the people who work there.

so go to a no-smoking pub its not that hardIt is when there aren't any near you.

Again - proper ventilation!! Smoking areas with negative preasure, strict enforcement of smoking areas etc. Pubs are shuting in the U.K at an astonishing rate. In Scotland when the ban was introduced SKY sports got 10,000 extra subscribers when the world cup was on. That's 10,000+ people staying away from pubs to watch the football in their own homes and having a cigg at the same time! No good being protected at work if you've no job.

Again, it doesn't work!! I've been to many pubs, and lots of them had ventilation, but it doesn't work. I still woke up next morning with my clothes stinking of ash, it's not nice.
And using the argument that "pubs are shutting in the UK at an astonishing rate" is a poor argument because, guess what, the ban hasn't been introduced yet. Pubs have been closing for years, even before the ban had even been passed, so blaming the banning of cigarettes is a fallicy.

what's so bad about ID-cards actually?



it's not that smoking annoys, it's unhealthy. especially for the people who work there.

Most pubs do not allow smoking at the bar. Most things aren't healthy - driving isn't, drinking isn't (unless you only have one glass of red wine a night), walking in cities isn't healthy, and on and on... With proper management smoking could continue in pubs without affecting non smokers as much. This blanket ban is unreasonable. Please pass the web address on!

what's so bad about ID-cards actually?

I don't like the idea of the government having even more information than it already does (I'd sooner it had far less, actually), and having all that information in one conveniently-abused place so that it can keep an eye on us, whatever we do... Especially when you note they're considering putting satellite tracking devices in everyone's cars, too, so they literally can be tracked wherever they go (for road tax, ostensibly). It doesn't take a paranoid-delusional genius to figure that little game out.

There's also because they'd be completely useless for any of the things they're supposedly being introduced to combat (OMGTERRISM!, organised crime, "identity theft", fnords raping your children, etc.), but that's a secondary consideration. And some people just object to paying for them, but that's missing the point completely.

There wil be money to be made in running smoke-easys

Most pubs do not allow smoking at the bar. Most things aren't healthy - driving isn't, drinking isn't (unless you only have one glass of red wine a night), walking in cities isn't healthy, and on and on... With proper management smoking could continue in pubs without affecting non smokers as much. This blanket ban is unreasonable. Please pass the web address on!

those things you listed are all unhealthy but they are all the choice of the people who do it. breathing in smoke isn't my choice. that's like saying that when i get cancer because of polution i shouldn't have breathed the poluted air.

although I appeciate the reasoning behind the law to ban smoking in public places, I personally see it as a cop out by the government. Places should have the option of being smoking or non smoking. If they do want to be smoking then they should follow strict guidelines on ventillation. I mean if you look at wetherspoons it has done this already.

what's so bad about ID-cards actually?



it's not that smoking annoys, it's unhealthy. especially for the people who work there.

Most pubs do not allow smoking at the bar. Most things aren't healthy - driving isn't, drinking isn't (unless you only have one glass of red wine a night), walking in cities isn't healthy, and on and on... With proper management smoking could continue in pubs without affecting non smokers as much. This blanket ban is unreasonable. Please pass the web address on!

It is actualy very reasonable. Like it or not smoking kills you, and those around you. What is your justifaction for objective to this very reasonable legislation? Ohh and for the record I smoke.

breathing in smoke isn't my choice

your forced into pubs :confused:

I don't like the idea of the government having even more information than it already does (I'd sooner it had far less, actually), and having all that information in one conveniently-abused place so that it can keep an eye on us, whatever we do... Especially when you note they're considering putting satellite tracking devices in everyone's cars, too, so they literally can be tracked wherever they go (for road tax, ostensibly). It doesn't take a paranoid-delusional genius to figure that little game out.

while the satelite tracking goes a little bit to far i see no real objection to ID-cards. i have one and it's quite easy. if people want to know who i really am (for my age for instance) they just ask my ID-card and they are sure.

although I appeciate the reasoning behind the law to ban smoking in public places, I personally see it as a cop out by the government. Places should have the option of being smoking or non smoking. If they do want to be smoking then they should follow strict guidelines on ventillation. I mean if you look at wetherspoons it has done this already.

Not all of them.

while the satelite tracking goes a little bit to far i see no real objection to ID-cards. i have one and it's quite easy. if people want to know who i really am (for my age for instance) they just ask my ID-card and they are sure.

The problem being is they want your ID card to have multiple purposes. It would contian bio info, where you live, how old you are, if crossed with an Oyster card then they can track your movments.

Goverments just should not have this amount of personal info about it's citersens.

That's the whole point of having designated smoking areas. With proper ventilation the smokers can relax as well as the no-smokers. Please people - sign up to this petition or let people know about it. The government puts these things up but never advertises.

So... where's the difference between forcing the pubs to do reconstructions on their property to accomodate smokers, and just sending the smokers outside?

So... where's the difference between forcing the pubs to do reconstructions on their property to accomodate smokers, and just sending the smokers outside?

Exactly, now you've had it in Ireland for what a year or so now? andf I hear that the pubs are still doing a roaring trade?

Come lets get some perspective huh, how hard is it to take a walk outside for 5 mins?

Ban the banners, I say. How is it we have come to a point where anythng that annoys anybody can be banned? A completely sterile life is no life at all.

It's a little more than simply annoying. A good friend of mine suffers from asthma. Back in Germany, she could not go out to any pubs or restaurants, unless it was summer and the place had an outside sitting area.
She really enjoyed visiting me here and finally being able to simply have a normal night out for the first time in her life.

Same goes for pregnant women, and children, and people with any form of respiratory conditions...

Again - proper ventilation!! Smoking areas with negative preasure, strict enforcement of smoking areas etc. Pubs are shuting in the U.K at an astonishing rate. In Scotland when the ban was introduced SKY sports got 10,000 extra subscribers when the world cup was on. That's 10,000+ people staying away from pubs to watch the football in their own homes and having a cigg at the same time! No good being protected at work if you've no job.

It didn't have that effect in Ireland.

Not all of them.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear

Wetherspoons has made the branches that are in Scotland (obviously) and a certain amount in England / Wales non smoking. This was done for many reasons eg they had two in one town/city, demand from locals or it couldn't ventillate the establishment.
In total thats 107 out of 669

The rest have either ample room for the smoke to dissipate or the ventilation removes a fair amount of smoke as to not trouble patrons.

here it only contains stuff like your name, living place and age, i don't know if they keep bio info, but it would surprise me. but doesn't your governement have these data already? they do know when you were born and were you live and what your name is, don't they?


That is a point, but all of this data is not collected in one handy place.

Image having a multipule function Id card, that got stolen.

That's you're life cloned that is.

The problem being is they want your ID card to have multiple purposes. It would contian bio info, where you live, how old you are, if crossed with an Oyster card then they can track your movments.

Goverments just should not have this amount of personal info about it's citersens.

here it only contains stuff like your name, living place and age, i don't know if they keep bio info, but it would surprise me. but doesn't your governement have these data already? they do know when you were born and were you live and what your name is, don't they?

Back in Germany, she could not go out to any pubs or restaurants, unless it was summer and the place had an outside sitting area.

your point falls to pieces once you realise that no smoking restaurants and pubs have become more profitable as such more and more common

while the satelite tracking goes a little bit to far i see no real objection to ID-cards. i have one and it's quite easy. if people want to know who i really am (for my age for instance) they just ask my ID-card and they are sure.

I don't have one and see no reason to want one. I'm too old to get ID'd for booze any more, so that's no problem. I don't get ID'd for anything else much; last time was to get a parcel from the Royal Mail, and my debit card sufficed (you can bet it wouldn't if they introduced ID cards, and does the government need to keep track of when people have to go and pick up packages..?). If I need photo ID (I think the last time was when I opened a bank account a couple of years ago) I can go to my parents' house and dig around for my driving licence (we're not required to carry it whilst driving; you get seven days to go to the cop-shop of your choice if a policeman wants to see it. And quite right, too).
For almost everything it doesn't matter if I am who I say I am. I don't need to be ID'd. And as this country has no overbearing, compulsory ID card I'm not; I'm just another bloke.

Exactly, now you've had it in Ireland for what a year or so now? andf I hear that the pubs are still doing a roaring trade?

Come lets get some perspective huh, how hard is it to take a walk outside for 5 mins?

Two years, iirc. And the pubs are doing great...

your point falls to pieces once you realise that no smoking restaurants and pubs have become more profitable as such more and more common

You go try and find one in Germany. I'm not even asking you to find one in my home town, everything in Bundesland Bayern. There are none.
And likewise, there was not a single pub or restaurant in Ireland that was non-smoking before the ban.

here it only contains stuff like your name, living place and age, i don't know if they keep bio info, but it would surprise me. but doesn't your governement have these data already? they do know when you were born and were you live and what your name is, don't they?

Maybe. They probably know someone with my name is claiming to live here, from the electoral register. They know someone of my name was born in May 1981.

They have no way of proving or disproving that that person is me; the birth certificate has no photograph, and even if it did I think I've changed a bit in 25 years. It certainly has no fingerprint data, or whatever biometric data they want to shoehorn into the ID card.

That is a point, but all of this data is not collected in one handy place.

Image having a multipule function Id card, that got stolen.

That's you're life cloned that is.

i don't know about multiple function ID-cards but here it has a (mostly very bad :p ) picture of you on it. so if it gets stolen the worst thing they can do is to put another picture in it and another name on it so that they have created a new identity, you also have to report it when your IDcard gets stolen. there are's a lot of stuff in my ID-card to protect it from being forged though, so i don't think stuff like that happen a lot.

your point falls to pieces once you realise that no smoking restaurants and pubs have become more profitable as such more and more common

i don't know any non-smoking pub, and they probably won't be the coolest of pubs.

there are's a lot of stuff in my ID-card to protect it from being forged though, so i don't think stuff like that happen a lot.

The harder a form of ID is to forge, the more valuable it is to those who'd wish to forge it.

And I think this is my most successful thread-hijack ever :)

i don't know any non-smoking pub, and they probably won't be the coolest of pubs.

Other than the aforementioned Weatherspoons (I've never seen a non-smoking one, though), nor do I.

Other than the aforementioned Weatherspoons (I've never seen a non-smoking one, though), nor do I.

I never heard of Weatherspoons... what's that?

I never heard of Weatherspoons... what's that?

wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetherspoons)
And I think this is my most successful thread-hijack ever :)

yes

I never heard of Weatherspoons... what's that?

They're a chain of pubs that're known for being cheap'n'cheerful. They sell pretty decent beer (from hand-pumps!) and perfectly acceptable food (far better than any fast food "restaurant"; it's actually food, after all; and not much more expensive).

Generally a pretty good place to go for lunch and a pint on a Sunday if you're a bit hard-up.

And my mistake, I spelled the name incorrectly; it's actually J D Wetherspoon.

i am pro ID cards. It would cut the HELL out of identity fraud- there is no identity fraud in the countries where ID is mandatory. Someone got a hold of a card I lost, and although it had been canceleld they still managed to use it on the net and run £1000 on it worth of direct debits and shit.
It got sorted but the fees on the overdraft- it was a card from an account i wasn't using but kept for a business I had - i still had to pay.

so they doing it here

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/prosmoking/

We need more signatures - pass on to any smokers who think the total ban in enclosed public spaces is wrong. I signed up at the beginning but more help is needed.

@#$% addicts

Fuck off. I work in a pub. You bastards don't have the right to pollute my lungs.

Sorry, I can't wait for the ban. I'm fed up of reeking of second hand smoke every time I go out for an evening. :p

Fuck off. I work in a pub. You bastards don't have the right to pollute my lungs.

You tell it, brah. People who smoke in crowded indoor areas are one of the lowest forms of scum.

I go to a lot of gigs and there are always selfish cunts smoking. It doesn't matter how hard I try to avoid them (which I shouldn't have to do, fucking tossers; I think my right to breathe trumps your right to be a dick), I always go home stinking of their disgusting habit. It gets all over my skin, hair and clothes and I really can't stand the smell. The coughing fits are no picnic either. At the last gig I went to I just silently menaced any smokers and swore at them until the took the hint. :D

You tell it, brah. People who smoke in crowded indoor areas are one of the lowest forms of scum.

I go to a lot of gigs and there are always selfish cunts smoking. It doesn't matter how hard I try to avoid them (which I shouldn't have to do, fucking tossers; I think my right to breathe trumps your right to be a dick), I always go home stinking of their disgusting habit. It gets all over my skin, hair and clothes and I really can't stand the smell. The coughing fits are no picnic either. At the last gig I went to I just silently menaced any smokers and swore at them until the took the hint. :D

AGAIN - I seem to be getting the impression that not smoking makes you an ignorant bigot. Properly ventilated areas in pubs where smoking would be allowed is perfectly reasonable. I don't call on an outright ban on non smokers rights to whinge constantly. I don't even ask for them to be given sound proof rooms to be mard in.

Properly ventilated areas in pubs where smoking would be allowed is perfectly reasonable. I don't call on an outright ban on non smokers rights to whinge constantly. I don't even ask for them to be given sound proof rooms to be mard in.

The easier thing to do is not smoke, since everyone else has recognised this all selfish cunts are fucked July onwards. If you provide the funds to your local for it to be "properly ventilated" and such ventilation prevents 100% of smoke drifting to all non-smokers including bar staff, then go nuts.

To humour you, hearing other people complain about passive smoke doesn't harm your health. I wish it did, so I could reciprocate the stupid bastards for their idiocy.

AGAIN - I seem to be getting the impression that not smoking makes you an ignorant bigot. Properly ventilated areas in pubs where smoking would be allowed is perfectly reasonable.

they already have those, it's called outside.

they already have those, it's called outside.

ZING.

The easier thing to do is not smoke, since everyone else has recognised this all selfish cunts are fucked July onwards. If you provide the funds to your local for it to be "properly ventilated" and such ventilation prevents 100% of smoke drifting to all non-smokers including bar staff, then go nuts.

To humour you, hearing other people complain about passive smoke doesn't harm your health. I wish it did, so I could reciprocate the stupid bastards for their idiocy.


If the funds used to buy the outdoor 'Jumbrellas' (approx £20,000 a peice -that are about 8ft x 8ft and come with heaters - there goes the ozone layer - that most pubs will purchase to accomodate smokers outside) was used to provide proper ventilation the selfish non-smoking cunts could smell like piss and beer without the added smell of burning leaves.

Of all the comments made by non smokers complaining about smokers I have not seen one that does not sound like the moaning of a 10 year old child.

Please remember - some people do things you do not like. Smoking is not healthy but then again no-one escapes from life alive. Public health legislation along with medical improvements over the years has seen the population of the world double over the last 50 years. Are we any better off? More congestion, fewer homes availiable, increased polution.

Smoking kills about 100,000 people a year in the U.K. If no-one smoked could you imagine another 1,000,000 people in the U.K every decade not including natural increases and imigration. Smoking helps regulate population on a small scale. Surely the selfish cunts are those who want to live forever, sucking the pension funds dry by living into their 90's, pissing into a bag and unable to remember their own kid's names?

they already have those, it's called outside.

They have an outside in pubs?!? Perhaps you need a smoke, to help you read and function logically.

Smoking kills about 100,000 people a year in the U.K. If no-one smoked could you imagine another 1,000,000 people in the U.K every decade not including natural increases and imigration. Smoking helps regulate population on a small scale. Surely the selfish cunts are those who want to live forever, sucking the pension funds dry by living into their 90's, pissing into a bag and unable to remember their own kid's names?

did you just say that killing 100,000 people a year is a good thing? and it's not really the dying i'm afraid of. but getting almost no sleep for a few nights in a row because you can't stop coughing gets annoying really fast.

and the real selfish people are the ones who made the population double without thinking about investing in the future. it's not because they made a mistake that we have to kill their children.

did you just say that killing 100,000 people a year is a good thing? and it's not really the dying i'm afraid of. but getting almost no sleep for a few nights in a row because you can't stop coughing gets annoying really fast.

Honestly, non smokers must have the constitution of a premature HIV baby made of tissue. I smoke about 20-30 a day, I hardly cough, can climb mountains no problem (I may do so next week as I am on holiday) and have not had a day off sick from work for 10 years. Plus I did not say 100,000 people dying a year way a good thing, I said 100,000 people a year, cumulatively, not being here is a good thing.

News flash - thousands of non smokers die every day!

Please remember - some people do things you do not like. Smoking is not healthy but then again no-one escapes from life alive. Public health legislation along with medical improvements over the years has seen the population of the world double over the last 50 years. Are we any better off? More congestion, fewer homes availiable, increased polution.

Smoking kills about 100,000 people a year in the U.K. If no-one smoked could you imagine another 1,000,000 people in the U.K every decade not including natural increases and imigration. Smoking helps regulate population on a small scale. Surely the selfish cunts are those who want to live forever, sucking the pension funds dry by living into their 90's, pissing into a bag and unable to remember their own kid's names?

And you are calling other 10-year-old children?

If the funds used to buy the outdoor 'Jumbrellas' (approx £20,000 a peice -that are about 8ft x 8ft and come with heaters - there goes the ozone layer - that most pubs will purchase to accomodate smokers outside) was used to provide proper ventilation the selfish non-smoking cunts could smell like piss and beer without the added smell of burning leaves.

I've already told you: go nuts with the ventilation if it will do what I said.



Please remember - some people do things you do not like. Smoking is not healthy but then again no-one escapes from life alive.

Which of those other things adversely affects my health and well-being when I am not partaking in them and are of no objective use?



Smoking kills about 100,000 people a year in the U.K. If no-one smoked could you imagine another 1,000,000 people in the U.K every decade not including natural increases and imigration. Smoking helps regulate population on a small scale. Surely the selfish cunts are those who want to live forever, sucking the pension funds dry by living into their 90's, pissing into a bag and unable to remember their own kid's names?

If you're that worried about population overload, draining the health budget and the pension fund, surely you should start with your own suicide? It would hold the added bonus of getting rid of one anti-ban whinger. :p

Honestly, non smokers must have the constitution of a premature HIV baby made of tissue. I smoke about 20-30 a day, I hardly cough, can climb mountains no problem (I may do so next week as I am on holiday) and have not had a day off sick from work for 10 years. Plus I did not say 100,000 people dying a year way a good thing, I said 100,000 people a year, cumulatively, not being here is a good thing.

good for you if you have good health, but you might want to remember not everybody is that lucky, i have astma for instance, what can i do about it?

good for you if you have good health, but you might want to remember not everybody is that lucky, i have astma for instance, what can i do about it?

At the moment you can not go anywhere that smokers will be in attendence. Which pre-ban limits you to your house (if no-one smokes there) if you're after any form of entertainment. And this is fair because you're not the one with the disgusting useless harmful habit.

I want to have nice clean lungs thank you, so i agree it should be banned in public places. (before you ask i am not ten but 14, ok)

good for you if you have good health, but you might want to remember not everybody is that lucky, i have astma for instance, what can i do about it?

The increase in asthma in recent history is mainy due to increased population - most allergies and medical problems have become more prolific over the past few years due to polution and general increase in poisons in the food chain due to heavy industry and commercial farming, whilst smoking has slowly declined. Persecuting smokers because you are genetically weaker is rediculouse. My argument was for better vetilation in pubs instead of exiling a good many pub users outside for doing something that has been done for hundreds of years. If you know a smoker who disagrees with the ban pass the OP web address on - this is a democracy after all.

And you are calling other 10-year-old children?

My argument does not sound like the reasonings of a 10 year old. "It smells and makes me go coughy and the bad man is doing it" does.

I want to have nice clean lungs thank you, so i agree it should be banned in public places. (before you ask i am not ten but 14, ok)

If you live in an urban area your chances of having clean lungs are nil. Still your opinions as a 14 year old seem to have better (if a bit naive) stance than most respondees.

I've already told you: go nuts with the ventilation if it will do what I said.





Which of those other things adversely affects my health and well-being when I am not partaking in them and are of no objective use?





If you're that worried about population overload, draining the health budget and the pension fund, surely you should start with your own suicide? It would hold the added bonus of getting rid of one anti-ban whinger. :p


According to the Daily Mail reading health facists I already am commiting suicide - one ciggy at a time. And your self-rightousness is what makes smokers hate the non-smoking fraternity so much. To quote Bill Hick - "Bunch of whiney little maggots".

Which of those other things adversely affects my health and well-being when I am not partaking in them and are of no objective use?

...

Passive smoking is not really an issue if there are properly ventilated smoking areas. This ban is pushed through by an overbearing European parliament. It also contributes to passive smoking in open areas - walk past a city pub after the ban and there will be a smog of smoke outside, and fag ends. Outdoor eaters installed by pub owners to avoid the loss of trade will contribute to carbon immisions.
"Smoking areas" are the worst gimmick I have ever heard of. Smoke does not sit around with the smoker going nowhere, the mostly invisible passive carcinogens fill up a room without anyone noticing. (Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6412177.stm)) Of course, I, along with the majority (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3561483.stm) of the British population would like to be able to go about our daily business without having smokers putting our lives at risk. Ventilation is good for neither man nor beast, since any system powerful enough to extrace all the smoke would have to be very noisy and create a powerful draft.

Of course, I understand that more people would smoke in open areas, as for which I couldn't care less. People drop fag ends (yuck!) anyway, and I'd rather only be exposed to toxic gas for a second walking into a pub rather than for a lot longer while having a drink. If you're so worried about the environment, perhaps not smoking at all under these heaters would be a better option.

And I don't give a flying fuck about who might be supporting it, EU or not. This was legislation passed by the UK Parliament, not Brussels.

The Mirror is not really a valid forum for moderate discussion. The NHS gets Billions from taxes on smokers. Injuries incurred whilst exercising cost the NHS 5 times more that obecity - but they don't tax jogging!
Please provide a source saying that both the Mirror is somehow biased and unworthy as a source. Furthermore, I don't care how much the NHS gets from smokers, that doesn't give smokers a right to potentially poison me, give me cancer, and then palm me off to the NHS. I'd rather have less NHS funding and less expensive operations, and less people dying from cancers. Of course, this could actually save (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=355530&in_page_id=1774)money. (It's not even the Mirror, is the Mail all right?)

Again, provide a link for obesity and jogging, but I hardly think it relevant.

On a final point - no-one escapes from life alive. What happened to live and let live? Pubs are not health farms they are places of relaxation and enjoyment.
That's the fucking point. I want to be able to live, and not be exposed to what could well kill me. And yes, I would enjoy going to the pub more if I didn't have to be smothered in fumes doing so.

If proper ventilation was introduced (perhaps like emmosions test on cars for none smoking areas) there would be no problem. Smokers could enjoy themselves in the pub whilst helping to reduce the pension troubles and non smokers wouldn't have to write to the Daily Mail about smelling of burning leaves.
I have already said that ventilation is a useless, and for small pubs, unaffordable, red herring. Plus, I resent potentially being killed by passive smoking and then being dismissed as saving the government money, which is complete bull anyway, since huge amounts of money is fed into the NHS to fund treatment for smoking and passive smoking.

Oh, and I don't write to the Mail - neither did these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States), Russia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4007369.stm), Hong Kong (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16440509/), Scotland, Ireland, the GPs. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4119623.stm)..

"Smoking areas" are the worst gimmick I have ever heard of. Smoke does not sit around with the smoker going nowhere, the mostly invisible passive carcinogens fill up a room without anyone noticing. (Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6412177.stm)) Of course, I, along with the majority (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3561483.stm) of the British population would like to be able to go about our daily business without having smokers putting our lives at risk. Ventilation is good for neither man nor beast, since any system powerful enough to extrace all the smoke would have to be very noisy and create a powerful draft.

Of course, I understand that more people would smoke in open areas, as for which I couldn't care less. People drop fag ends (yuck!) anyway, and I'd rather only be exposed to toxic gas for a second walking into a pub rather than for a lot longer while having a drink. If you're so worried about the environment, perhaps not smoking at all under these heaters would be a better option.

And I don't give a flying fuck about who might be supporting it, EU or not. This was legislation passed by the UK Parliament, not Brussels.


Please provide a source saying that both the Mirror is somehow biased and unworthy as a source. Furthermore, I don't care how much the NHS gets from smokers, that doesn't give smokers a right to potentially poison me, give me cancer, and then palm me off to the NHS. I'd rather have less NHS funding and less expensive operations, and less people dying from cancers. Of course, this could actually save (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=355530&in_page_id=1774)money. (It's not even the Mirror, is the Mail all right?)

Again, provide a link for obesity and jogging, but I hardly think it relevant.


That's the fucking point. I want to be able to live, and not be exposed to what could well kill me. And yes, I would enjoy going to the pub more if I didn't have to be smothered in fumes doing so.


I have already said that ventilation is a useless, and for small pubs, unaffordable, red herring. Plus, I resent potentially being killed by passive smoking and then being dismissed as saving the government money, which is complete bull anyway, since huge amounts of money is fed into the NHS to fund treatment for smoking and passive smoking.

Oh, and I don't write to the Mail - neither did these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States), Russia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4007369.stm), Hong Kong (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16440509/), Scotland, Ireland, the GPs. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4119623.stm)..


Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans. Didn't I say that non-smokers are whiney little maggots? 'Potentially being killed' - for fuck's sake, you are being certainly killed by life itself! It smells a bit -sure but everything is killing you you stupid ****. Negative preasure ventilators work in medical factories with very little noise, and their sterilisation procedures are more strict than that which would be required of smoking areas. I want an area in the pub where I can smoke - you want to live forever in some magical land where everything smells like flowers. If the non-smoking facists ruled the world we would all go to the fucking 'Priory' on a night out.

I like smokey pubs, it gives it character and I like the smell. (does that make me weird?)

Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans. Didn't I say that non-smokers are whiney little maggots?
I couldn't give a fuck what you think - or how you flame me in order to dodge the issue.

'Potentially being killed' - for fuck's sake, you are being certainly killed by life itself!
Yes - but not by lung cancer. I'm going to live well and long. And yes, use your tax money to live into my nineties and piss into a colostomy bag. Does that satisfy you?


It smells a bit -sure but everything is killing you you stupid ****.
Flame #2, bereft of argument, I see.

Negative preasure ventilators work in medical factories with very little noise, and their sterilisation procedures are more strict than that which would be required of smoking areas.
So, now you want to install a negative pressure ventilator is every pub? Here's an idea - pop outside for two minutes and you will be able to smoke without bankrupting your local. Good lord, have we really got to the level of suggesting we install hospital equipment in pubs?

I want an area in the pub where I can smoke -
It's called outside. Strand in the porch, it's virtually inside. Don't like it? Tough shit.

you want to live forever in some magical land where everything smells like flowers. If the non-smoking facists ruled the world we would all go to the fucking 'Priory' on a night out.
You would rather flame and make ad hominems. So I care about what you think I and the majority of the British people think about as much as I care about your 'right' to cause cancer and smoking related disease.

According to the Daily Mail reading health facists I already am commiting suicide - one ciggy at a time. And your self-rightousness is what makes smokers hate the non-smoking fraternity so much. To quote Bill Hick - "Bunch of whiney little maggots".

Impressive you bolded a question in an opposing argument and yet completely failed to answer it

I loke smokey pubs, it gives it character and I like the smell. (does that make me weird?)

No, it makes you a normal everyday person who enjoys the simple things in life. Instad of complianing you enjoy the sights and smells of England. Some, however, enjoy complaining the fact they have to wash their clothes after a night out (what dirty fucker doesn't wash their clothes after a night out??) and belittleling others for enjoying the entrapments of nicotine. If this country was to go to war again like in WWII would you want the non-smoking league on the national front? - "I don't want to shoot a gun, it makes my clothes smell of cordite and people might die! Why can't we just ban shooting then everyone would live forever!!" :p

No, it makes you a normal everyday person who enjoys the simple things in life. Instad of complianing you enjoy the sights and smells of England. Some, however, enjoy complaining the fact they have to wash their clothes after a night out (what dirty fucker doesn't wash their clothes after a night out??) and belittleling others for enjoying the entrapments of nicotine. If this country was to go to war again like in WWII would you want the non-smoking league on the national front? - "I don't want to shoot a gun, it makes my clothes smell of cordite and people might die! Why can't we just ban shooting then everyone would live forever!!" :p

You jumped from smoking to WWII wtf

Roll on July!

Banning smoking won't solve anything. Increase the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes tenfold and you'll see some change!

No, it makes you a normal everyday person who enjoys the simple things in life.
No, it doesn't. In fact, most people want the ban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3561483.stm
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,,1348802,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1572786,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article444116.ece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmpolls/index.html?in_poll_id=14140&in_page_id=711
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/09/27/news/doc4519a99f0b126742589112.txt

Can I find a scientific poll that says otherwise? no.

Instad of complianing you enjoy the sights and smells of England.
The inside of a dingy, smoky pub? I can thing of far better sights and smells, in England, thank you very much.

Oh, and you're doing you fair bit of complaining, too. Still, can't let that get in the way of a good rant.

Some, however, enjoy complaining the fact they have to wash their clothes after a night out (what dirty fucker doesn't wash their clothes after a night out??)
Was that the point that flew straight over your head?

and belittleling others for enjoying the entrapments of nicotine.
Like we belittle others who enjoy the entrapments of walking down the street in the nude.

If this country was to go to war again like in WWII would you want the non-smoking league on the national front? - "I don't want to shoot a gun, it makes my clothes smell of cordite and people might die! Why can't we just ban shooting then everyone would live forever!!" :p
More useless, irrelevant bleating.

I couldn't give a fuck what you think - or how you flame me in order to dodge the issue.


Yes - but not by lung cancer. I'm going to live well and long. And yes, use your tax money to live into my nineties and piss into a colostomy bag. Does that satisfy you?



Flame #2, bereft of argument, I see.


So, now you want to install a negative pressure ventilator is every pub? Here's an idea - pop outside for two minutes and you will be able to smoke without bankrupting your local. Good lord, have we really got to the level of suggesting we install hospital equipment in pubs?


It's called outside. Strand in the porch, it's virtually inside. Don't like it? Tough shit.


You would rather flame and make ad hominems. So I care about what you think I and the majority of the British people think about as much as I care about your 'right' to cause cancer and smoking related disease.

One in three people will get cancer in their lifetime. Hopefully you will get cancer of the arse and mouth as that is where all your shit comes out.

Negative preasure ventilation is not the perogative of hospitals, it is simple air flow technology, you reduce the air preasure in one part of a room to make the air travel in one direction - or are you still scared of the wheel? - these modern fangled contraptions.

If you don't like pubs, where smoking has been practiced for hundreds of years - go outside!!

If you eat a food product farmed using any modern pesticide you are encouraging cancer. Or eating tuna (heavy metal deposits). The fact that you can smell and see cigarette smoke focusesy our mind on an evil. Stop smoking altogether and cancer will still be rife.

You jumped from smoking to WWII wtf

http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2005/wtf-abort.jpg

One in three people will get cancer in their lifetime. Hopefully you will get cancer of the arse and mouth as that is where all your shit comes out.

Negative preasure ventilation is not the perogative of hospitals, it is simple air flow technology, you reduce the air preasure in one part of a room to make the air travel in one direction - or are you still scared of the wheel? - these modern fangled contraptions.

If you don't like pubs, where smoking has been practiced for hundreds of years - go outside!!

If you eat a food product farmed using any modern pesticide you are encouraging cancer. Or eating tuna (heavy metal deposits). The fact that you can smell and see cigarette smoke focusesy our mind on an evil. Stop smoking altogether and cancer will still be rife.
Just because we cant solve all the problems now does not mean that it does not help to solve some of them.

This is not an all or none proposition.

One in three people will get cancer in their lifetime. Hopefully you will get cancer of the arse and mouth as that is where all your shit comes out.
More flaming. Again, no doubt, because you don't have a leg to stand on.

Negative preasure ventilation is not the perogative of hospitals, it is simple air flow technology, you reduce the air preasure in one part of a room to make the air travel in one direction - or are you still scared of the wheel? - these modern fangled contraptions.
Actually, negative pressure ventilation is used to keep particles/gas in the air, such as bacteria, in a room. (I would have spotted that earlier, but you know...) The air pressure in the hermetically sealed room is reduced, so when a door is opened air only moves in. Which would be useless for removing smoke, even if pubs could afford to seal every nook and cranny.

If you don't like pubs, where smoking has been practiced for hundreds of years - go outside!!
And fur hundreds and hundreds of years we didn't know about the harmful effects of passive smoke. Now, non smokers who are in a vast majority do not want to be exposed to it. Simply sending non smokers outside would bankrupt pubs, as they wouldn't come. Of course, smokers who can afford two minutes to have a fag can still come. Ergo, smokers go outside.

If you eat a food product farmed using any modern pesticide you are encouraging cancer. Or eating tuna (heavy metal deposits). The fact that you can smell and see cigarette smoke focusesy our mind on an evil.
Now every modern pesticide causes cancer. Is this the same faux science you use about negative pressure ventilators? My AS level textbook tells me as much.

Oh, and I don't eat tuna. Evil shit.

Stop smoking altogether and cancer will still be rife.
Undoubtedly. But not through cancer-causing second hand smoke, and that doesn't mean that we prevent one of it's major contributors.

Christ! I wish you were an abortion.
I can now see the light. Of course I'm wrong. Smoke FTW. :rolleyes:

You are a bigot of the highest order.

We're not bigots. We only hate the selfish smokers who have no consideration for those around them. Smokers who do it in private where it won't harm anyone else, I have nothing against. Enjoy your carcinogens, just don't have me "enjoy" them with you.

I've just read the whole thing. The guy was only asking other smokers to support the petition - not argue its validity.

Well I blame the Irish.

Well I blame the Irish.

So do I. Still angry after the whole potato thing.

So do I. Still angry after the whole potato thing.

Nah, those fuckers opened that non-smoking pub in north shields too. That's where this shit started.

It's like it's sad they were too stupid to plant other crops and shit. But do they really have to ruin english pub life to get there revenge?

I'm sure that blair bastard is irish too.

Why doesn't he have a proper english name, like Ord, or Hodgkiss or something.

Fuck me, next thing you know there will be an Evans in No. 10.

Nah, those fuckers opened that non-smoking pub in north shields too. That's where this shit started.

It's like it's sad they were too stupid to plant other crops and shit. But do they really have to ruin english pub life to get there revenge?

I supose they do. Goddamn bogtrotters. But they have plenty of support from reactionary morons with no sense of live and let live.

I'm sure that blair bastard is irish too.

Why doesn't he have a proper english name, like Ord, or Hodgkiss or something.

Fuck me, next thing you know there will be an Evans in No. 10.
His propler name is actually Bliar. Next thing you know we will have a bloody Scot in no10. The Scots can f*ck off north of Berwick for all I care and drink themselves to death like they are so good at.

I supose they do. Goddamn bogtrotters. But they have plenty of support from reactionary morons with no sense of live and let live.

Exactly. Just because the english tried to civilize the irish, now our pubs should pay for that?

Ridiculous.

His propler name is actually Bliar. Next thing you know we will have a bloody Scot in no10. The Scots can f*ck off north of Berwick for all I care and drink themselves to death like they are so good at.

I've always believed that scots should have no place in parliament being - as they are - drunken halfwits.

I mean, if the scots were so good, the would have won at flodden, wouldn't they?

But they didn't.

And yet now they terrify me by thinking that Gordon Broon or some such will sit in no 10.

Exactly. Just because the english tried to civilize the irish, now our pubs should pay for that?

Ridiculous.

Well we tried and obviously failed.

Quoted for lol. Who would have thought such an unpromising thread would produce such high quality truth nuggets?:D

Oh, and a brief on topic comment...I personally feel that selfishly filling a pub with acrid smoke is about as ill-mannered as stripping naked, taking a dump, and hurling your fresh deposits at the other customers.

Ah, another reactionary moron. Pubs have been this way for hundreds of years. Europe plans a statewide ban on smoking in enclosed spaces and the kneejerkers drag their inferior carcases out of the woodwork and start yapping like little dogs.

I'm sure that blair bastard is irish too.

Why doesn't he have a proper english name, like Ord, or Hodgkiss or something.

Fuck me, next thing you know there will be an Evans in No. 10.

His propler name is actually Bliar. Next thing you know we will have a bloody Scot in no10. The Scots can f*ck off north of Berwick for all I care and drink themselves to death like they are so good at.

Quoted for lol. Who would have thought such an unpromising thread would produce such high quality truth nuggets?:D

Oh, and a brief on topic comment...I personally feel that selfishly filling a pub with acrid smoke is about as ill-mannered as stripping naked, taking a dump, and hurling your fresh deposits at the other customers.

Ban the banners, I say. How is it we have come to a point where anythng that annoys anybody can be banned? A completely sterile life is no life at all.I tried to make a decision about whether to make a joke about how smoking gives men impotency problems and a serious question about why smoking makes life any less boring. It has to be one of the most boring drugs available. If you want to take drugs, then at least take something that effects more when you are actually taking it as opposed to when you're not taking it and suffering withdrawl symptoms.

Hi, obviously you're new here if you weren't expecting a flamefest. :D

I am new but I know when a thread is hijacked by people who can't hack it in the real world.

I've just read the whole thing. The guy was only asking other smokers to support the petition - not argue its validity.

Hi, obviously you're new here if you weren't expecting a flamefest. :D

I tried to make a decision about whether to make a joke about how smoking gives men impotency problems and a serious question about why smoking makes life any less boring. It has to be one of the most boring drugs available. If you want to take drugs, then at least take something that effects more when you are actually taking it as opposed to when you're not taking it and suffering withdrawl symptoms.

I see your from London. Well the smoking ban won't help your health. Whenever I am there the air inside a smokey pub is safer that the air outside. London is the only place that has given me black snot whilst walking around.

Hmmm...nice use of 'reactionary'. People arguing for social reform in the interest of customers' and barstaffs' health are reactionary in what sense? Otherwise, I must congratulate you on your lovely flamey post. Ah well, next time you're in the pub, I'll buy you a pint of 'bitter'.

Reactionary in that the smoking has been going on for generations and a vote in the commons pokes the weak peoples cages and starts them off moaning like petulant children.

And by the way, if your getting me a bitter - make it a 'Marston's'.

Hello, October3. :rolleyes:

I know not of whome you speak.

Ah, another reactionary moron. Pubs have been this way for hundreds of years. Europe plans a statewide ban on smoking in enclosed spaces and the kneejerkers drag their inferior carcases out of the woodwork and start yapping like little dogs.

Hmmm...nice use of 'reactionary'. People arguing for social reform in the interest of customers' and barstaffs' health are reactionary in what sense? Otherwise, I must congratulate you on your lovely flamey post. Ah well, next time you're in the pub, I'll buy you a pint of 'bitter'.

I am new but I know when a thread is hijacked by people who can't hack it in the real world.

Hello, October3. :rolleyes:

Just because something has been going on for generations doesn't neccessarily make it right. To my mind it also seems to be the smokers who continue to moan who are acting in the manner of petulant children, given that the elected body, with, according to most polls, the support of the majority, have made their decision, and acted in the health interests of the majority of the public, who do not want their evenings ruined by other people's cylinders of cancer! And according to all uses of reactionary I have heard, it generally refers to those who oppose change even when it has been rationally demonstrated to be in the interests of the people. Perhaps you are the reactionary?


Just sign the petition or pass it onto a smoker you know.

Reactionary in that the smoking has been going on for generations and a vote in the commons pokes the weak peoples cages and starts them off moaning like petulant children.

And by the way, if your getting me a bitter - make it a 'Marston's'.

Just because something has been going on for generations doesn't neccessarily make it right. To my mind it also seems to be the smokers who continue to moan who are acting in the manner of petulant children, given that the elected body, with, according to most polls, the support of the majority, have made their decision, and acted in the health interests of the majority of the public, who do not want their evenings ruined by other people's cylinders of cancer! And according to all uses of reactionary I have heard, it generally refers to those who oppose change even when it has been rationally demonstrated to be in the interests of the people. Perhaps you are the reactionary?

EDIT: Bloody hell, there's a lot of timewarp in this thread. My head hurts :(

Not digning, ban the damn thing already.

You do know that smoking will still be allowed in the houses of parliament bars so all these polititians making these laws are exempt from the ban whilst at 'work'.

Never!

I see your from London. Well the smoking ban won't help your health. Whenever I am there the air inside a smokey pub is safer that the air outside. London is the only place that has given me black snot whilst walking around.I don't live in London currently... but it is where I wish I was.

Anyway, who said it had anything to do with health. Cigarette smoke makes me choke. Car exhaust doesn't.

Besides, it could probably be very easily argued that car exhaust is less toxic than cigarette smoke. At least the ingredient list of petrol is shorter than that for cigarettes.

Your argument seems to be similar to being on a diet and sucumbing to some cake - you might as well have a pastry as well whilst you're at it.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=54426&c=1

Some studies show banning smoking in pubs and bars helps kill kids.

I don't live in London currently... but it is where I wish I was.

Anyway, who said it had anything to do with health. Cigarette smoke makes me choke. Car exhaust doesn't.

Besides, it could probably be very easily argued that car exhaust is less toxic than cigarette smoke. At least the ingredient list of petrol is shorter than that for cigarettes.

Your argument seems to be similar to being on a diet and sucumbing to some cake - you might as well have a pastry as well whilst you're at it.

For those about to live forever - check out these health scares......

http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page297.asp

What can we ban next??

If you expect them to work in conditions that are hazardous to their health then pay them danger money.

After reading all the health scares if everyone who worked somewhere that was hazardous to their health we would have hyperinflation German style.

should coal miners be forced out of mines because it gets too dusty? Tough really if they don’t want to work in smoky conditions McDonalds will hire them

Or how about bar staff should we stop serving alcohol because it endangers the people that work there?
If you expect them to work in conditions that are hazardous to their health then pay them danger money.

After reading all the health scares if everyone who worked somewhere that was hazardous to their health we would have hyperinflation German style.

Then maybe you should stop expecting people to work in needlessly dangerous conditions?

Then maybe you should stop expecting people to work in needlessly dangerous conditions?

Good idea:-

No more police - too dangerous, might come into contact with criminals
No more prison officers - will come into contact with prisoners
No more treament for HIV sufferers - why should medical staff be exposed to potential dangers
No more fish at the market - fishing can be dangerous, out on the sea.
No more quarries - too risky
No more professional sports - might get injured.

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=54426&c=1

Some studies show banning smoking in pubs and bars helps kill kids.

No, that's not a study. That's a news article describing their interpreted results of a supposed study which it provides no link or reference to. Even if such a study exists, it's clearly the selfish tosser lighting up in the vicinity of his/her children who is to blame fo exposing their children to a health risk (which previously in the thread you, October3, were denying even existed).

Good idea:-

No more police - too dangerous, might come into contact with criminals
No more prison officers - will come into contact with prisoners
No more treament for HIV sufferers - why should medical staff be exposed to potential dangers
No more fish at the market - fishing can be dangerous, out on the sea.
No more quarries - too risky
No more professional sports - might get injured.

those aren't needless risks. a needles risk would for instance be that the guy working with HIV-patients didn't wear gloves or that he wouldn't be carefull were he placed used needles.

Good idea:-

No more police - too dangerous, might come into contact with criminals
No more prison officers - will come into contact with prisoners
No more treament for HIV sufferers - why should medical staff be exposed to potential dangers
No more fish at the market - fishing can be dangerous, out on the sea.
No more quarries - too risky
No more professional sports - might get injured.

Way to ignore the word needlessly in my post. Maybe it was too small for you. Here:
Then maybe you should stop expecting people to work in needlessly dangerous conditions?

No, that's not a study. That's a news article describing their interpreted results of a supposed study which it provides no link or reference to. Even if such a study exists, it's clearly the selfish tosser lighting up in the vicinity of his/her children who is to blame fo exposing their children to a health risk (which previously in the thread you, October3, were denying even existed).


University College London

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban

Way to ignore the word needlessly in my post. Maybe it was too small for you. Here:

Fish and profesional sports are a needless ocupation. People who work in bars do not get there and think - "Oh no, I never knew people smoked in these places", they enter into the employ of a pub knowing the exposure will occur.

When I worked in a pub ALL the bar staff smoked.

University College London

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban

Even if such a study exists, it's clearly the selfish tosser lighting up in the vicinity of his/her children who is to blame fo exposing their children to a health risk (which previously in the thread you, October3, were denying even existed).

...

I see your from London. Well the smoking ban won't help your health. Whenever I am there the air inside a smokey pub is safer that the air outside. London is the only place that has given me black snot whilst walking around.

Seriously... do you honstly expect anyone else who has ever been to London to believe you got black snot from walking around? The Smog was a looooong time ago so you're either very very very old or making shit up.

Anyway - As a Londoner recently moved up to Edinburgh I can say that the smoking ban is awesome. You go out and there is no smoke in the bars, you don't get a dry throat or sore eyes from the smoke, even the smokers I know up here are pleased with the ban - and it is oh so much a chore for them to walk 10 paces to the sheltered area outside to have a quick smoke before coming back in that I have not heard one person complain about it. Then the best bit - you wake up the next morning and none of your clothes smell, you don't smell, the girl next to you in bed still smells good rather than reeking of day-old smoke and your clothes don't need to be drycleaned unless you threw up on yourself or got beer tipped over you. Even all the people I know who do smoke have said when they moved up here how much they enjoyed all these plusses - and agree with the ban.

May i introduce my hun neighbours to the concept of smirting.

That is smoking and flirting. Outside the boozer, ask her for a light and for 3/4 minuites its not only accepted but expected to engage her in small talk. I have had tremendous amounts of sex from the chit chat that ensues.

So to sum up, pubs stink of people, bar staff live longer and the SR gets his bags. Its a fantastic law. :D

It should be up to the owner of the business, really. If such a ban is truly needed, the free market would show this by punishing those bars that allow smoking and rewarding those that don't.

It's that simple, really.

I think government interferance with private business is worse of a problem than smoking in bars.

Fish and profesional sports are a needless ocupation. People who work in bars do not get there and think - "Oh no, I never knew people smoked in these places", they enter into the employ of a pub knowing the exposure will occur.



Your logic appears to be that people should just accept the risk in their job, sure there are some jobs that have risks which are totally unavoidable (king crap fishermen in the Baearing sea for example) and it is their choice to do what they do and accept the risks involved. However, as far as I am concerned where the risks can be reasonably eliminated they should be. A smoking ban would do this for the people that work in bars, but also for the 75% of the population that does not smoke. By your logic little or nothing should be done to reduce the coal dust in coal mines, or toxic fumes that cause brain damage and cancer in some manufacturing processes. Is that acceptable?

Times are changing 50 years ago 80% of people smoked in the UK with children as young as 7 or 8 smoking now about 25% of the population does. Smoking was considered ok and harmless, in fact it was considered good to smoke as some adverts thought it improved your health.

Now a lot of that is in the past, we know the full health problems smoking and being in a smoky environment causes. Now that the proportion of the population that does not smoke is 3 times greater than that of the smokers it is their needs that take priority.

This is just a simple case of one mans rights ending where another begins.

Fishing is an inherently dangerous career - however the law states that the employer must work to make the risk posed "As low as reasonably practable".

Construction is an inherently dangerous career - however the law states that the risk must be made 'as low as reasonably practable'.

Ditto all the rest.

This means that te employer either has a duty to remove a risk, or provide it's employees with safety equipment to protect them while at the same time doing everything they can to reduce the risk and hazard as much as possible.

For example - dust inhaliation in construction - dust CANNOT be removed from some forms of construction - it is an inherent part of the process with current technology. However it can be reduced and controlled - and the workers can be given safety masks to prevent the reduced dust levels from being inhaled.

Smoke however CAN be removed from a pub, it is not an inherent and unavoidable part of the operation of a pub. Hence in respect to health and safety leglislation a pub does have the duty to remove the hazard - which it can do very easily by simply requireing smokers to step outside for a couple of minutes when they want to light up.

I like when people say what I was thinking, only better. Thanks.

Fish and profesional sports are a needless ocupation. People who work in bars do not get there and think - "Oh no, I never knew people smoked in these places", they enter into the employ of a pub knowing the exposure will occur.

When I worked in a pub ALL the bar staff smoked.

Fishing is an inherently dangerous career - however the law states that the employer must work to make the risk posed "As low as reasonably practable".

Construction is an inherently dangerous career - however the law states that the risk must be made 'as low as reasonably practable'.

Ditto all the rest.

This means that te employer either has a duty to remove a risk, or provide it's employees with safety equipment to protect them while at the same time doing everything they can to reduce the risk and hazard as much as possible.

For example - dust inhaliation in construction - dust CANNOT be removed from some forms of construction - it is an inherent part of the process with current technology. However it can be reduced and controlled - and the workers can be given safety masks to prevent the reduced dust levels from being inhaled.

Smoke however CAN be removed from a pub, it is not an inherent and unavoidable part of the operation of a pub. Hence in respect to health and safety leglislation a pub does have the duty to remove the hazard - which it can do very easily by simply requireing smokers to step outside for a couple of minutes when they want to light up.

Fish and profesional sports are a needless ocupation. People who work in bars do not get there and think - "Oh no, I never knew people smoked in these places", they enter into the employ of a pub knowing the exposure will occur.
Exposure which is not a part of their job, like facing injury is for a sports professional.

When I worked in a pub ALL the bar staff smoked.

Oh, well in that case I guess you're totally right, people should smoke in pubs. In fact, you're so right I'm going to go smoke myself to death in record time.

Seriously... do you honstly expect anyone else who has ever been to London to believe you got black snot from walking around? The Smog was a looooong time ago so you're either very very very old or making shit up.


Erm I hate to break it to you, but I live in the Peak District and suffer from no breathing problems at all. However when last went to visit my friends in London last summer we spent 10 hours outside, where we went in no smoky environment and I got black snot. For people outside London it is something we notice...which is kinda odd that I pay so much attention to the colour of my snot.:confused:

It should be up to the owner of the business, really. If such a ban is truly needed, the free market would show this by punishing those bars that allow smoking and rewarding those that don't.

It's that simple, really.

I think government interferance with private business is worse of a problem than smoking in bars.

The reason for the ban is one of health and safety for the workers.

Employers are noted for not giving a shit about the health of easily replaceable workers - this is most starkly shown in Victorian era industry where they literally did simply replace workers - including small children - who were killed with no economic or market reason to change.

May i introduce my hun neighbours to the concept of smirting.

That is smoking and flirting. Outside the boozer, ask her for a light and for 3/4 minuites its not only accepted but expected to engage her in small talk. I have had tremendous amounts of sex from the chit chat that ensues.

So to sum up, pubs stink of people, bar staff live longer and the SR gets his bags. Its a fantastic law. :D

I know a girl who started smoking so she could keep flirting with the guy who just offered her a smoke.

May i introduce my hun neighbours to the concept of smirting.

That is smoking and flirting. Outside the boozer, ask her for a light and for 3/4 minuites its not only accepted but expected to engage her in small talk. I have had tremendous amounts of sex from the chit chat that ensues.

So to sum up, pubs stink of people, bar staff live longer and the SR gets his bags. Its a fantastic law. :D

Everyone wins!

Exposure which is not a part of their job, like facing injury is for a sports professional.



Oh, well in that case I guess you're totally right, people should smoke in pubs. In fact, you're so right I'm going to go smoke myself to death in record time.

So what is wrong with allowing market forces to regulate smoking in pubs? Have publicans choose wether or not to allow smoking. Those people who do not mind working in a smoking pub can work there and those who do not wish to work in a smokey environment can work in a non smoking pub (although they can't work in 'The Strand' - Preston's first no smoking pub as it went bust). If you don't like drinking in a smokey pub drink in a non smoking one and I will drink in a smoking one. WOW. That sounds like a free society in which consenting adults can make their own decisions. How crazy is that?

So what is wrong with allowing market forces to regulate smoking in pubs? Have publicans choose wether or not to allow smoking. Those people who do not mind working in a smoking pub can work there and those who do not wish to work in a smokey environment can work in a non smoking pub (although they can't work in 'The Strand' - Preston's first no smoking pub as it went bust). If you don't like drinking in a smokey pub drink in a non smoking one and I will drink in a smoking one. WOW. That sounds like a free society in which consenting adults can make their own decisions. How crazy is that?

Simple, market forces won't change anything. Publicans can choose to have no smoking pubs, but they don't, because they think the smokers would go elsewhere. And they would, addiction is usually like that. So all the while bar staff have to put up with smokey conditions or become unemployed.

Simple, market forces won't change anything. Publicans can choose to have no smoking pubs, but they don't, because they think the smokers would go elsewhere. And they would, addiction is usually like that. So all the while bar staff have to put up with smokey conditions or become unemployed.

So we live in a free society. There are non smoking pubs now. What is wrong with having a choice? Even private smoking clubs set up by the proprieters exclusively for the enjoying of tobacco are being banned. What would be so wrong about having one or two pubs in a town where smoking is permitted? A smoking pub set up by smokers, for smokers and employing smokers. No, say the government you can't have freedom of choice. I can see no argument for not allowing special exemptions.

Better petition:-

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokers-united/

Please pass this one on instead.

So we live in a free society. There are non smoking pubs now. What is wrong with having a choice? Even private smoking clubs set up by the proprieters exclusively for the enjoying of tobacco are being banned. What would be so wrong about having one or two pubs in a town where smoking is permitted? A smoking pub set up by smokers, for smokers and employing smokers. No, say the government you can't have freedom of choice. I can see no argument for not allowing special exemptions.
Why should there be special exceptions? Why should smoking pubs be allowed to discriminate in who the hire by only hiring smokers? Why should they be given special permission to steal business from non-smoking pubs? Why bother even banning smoking if you're going to allow some pubs ignore the ban?
Better petition:-

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokers-united/

Please pass this one on instead.

Persecution of smokers? Oh please :rolleyes:

Why should there be special exceptions? Why should smoking pubs be allowed to discriminate in who the hire by only hiring smokers? Why should they be given special permission to steal business from non-smoking pubs? Why bother even banning smoking if you're going to allow some pubs ignore the ban?


Persecution of smokers? Oh please :rolleyes:

Freedom of choice.

Steal business away from non-smoking pubs? That's freedom of choice. They don't have to discriminate by only hiring smokers - anyone who doesn't mind working in a smoking pub could do so. You could have smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs - simple easy democracy - If public opinion is so in favour of non-smoking pubs why do we need regulations to stop people choosing to go to a pub where you can smoke? Why even bother banning smoking?

Why even bother banning smoking?

I could repeat the arguements from the previous 11 pages, but instead I'll suggest you just re-read the thread. Save me the effort. I have to go anyway, damned sister.

I could repeat the arguements from the previous 11 pages, but instead I'll suggest you just re-read the thread. Save me the effort. I have to go anyway, damned sister.

Still no reason not to have smoking and no smoking pubs.

Ifreann, I don't know how you did it, but you're clearly for the fucking win.

I'm in ur thred, steelin ur pollz

His propler name is actually Bliar. Next thing you know we will have a bloody Scot in no10. The Scots can f*ck off north of Berwick for all I care and drink themselves to death like they are so good at.
Any particular reason for this kind of bigotry, or is it just more random ramblings?

Freedom of choice.

Steal business away from non-smoking pubs? That's freedom of choice. They don't have to discriminate by only hiring smokers - anyone who doesn't mind working in a smoking pub could do so. You could have smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs - simple easy democracy - If public opinion is so in favour of non-smoking pubs why do we need regulations to stop people choosing to go to a pub where you can smoke? Why even bother banning smoking?
Why? Because the wonderful 'market forces' don't always follow public opinion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have consumer advocacy groups and government involvement in the economy. Who would decide whether to have a smoking and a non-smoking pub? All (bar two) the locals where I live allow smoking indoors, although most people don't smoke. The first is always heaving, and the second sells crap beer. Seems to be a oligarchy of the publicans, not the democracy of the majority.

Oh, and tell me you aren't October3.

Except only about 100 none smoking pubs opened so for the vast majority of the population this democracy of which you speak did not exist. Also your attempt to make this subject black and white is also very misleading and does not take into accout how people go out and socialise, normally with other people. Some of them are smokers some of them are not so it makes the situation more difficult than you make out. Society is not divided into two camps. Your idea works well as that, a whimsical idea which is poorly thought out and would not work in the real world.

However, surely it is not just about freedom of choice is it about peoples rights, and for 75% of the english population their right to be in a building which is smoke free is taken away from them. Both smokers and none smokers have a right to be in the same building but one does not have the right to slowly poison the other.
Oh, he doesn't believe in that. When I raised earlier in the thread, he just flamed me repeatedly.

EDIT: OMFG TIME WARP!!!!!!

Freedom of choice.

Steal business away from non-smoking pubs? That's freedom of choice. They don't have to discriminate by only hiring smokers - anyone who doesn't mind working in a smoking pub could do so. You could have smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs - simple easy democracy - If public opinion is so in favour of non-smoking pubs why do we need regulations to stop people choosing to go to a pub where you can smoke? Why even bother banning smoking?

Except only about 100 none smoking pubs opened so for the vast majority of the population this democracy of which you speak did not exist. Also your attempt to make this subject black and white is also very misleading and does not take into accout how people go out and socialise, normally with other people. Some of them are smokers some of them are not so it makes the situation more difficult than you make out. Society is not divided into two camps. Your idea works well as that, a whimsical idea which is poorly thought out and would not work in the real world.

However, surely it is not just about freedom of choice is it about peoples rights, and for 75% of the english population their right to be in a building which is smoke free is taken away from them. Both smokers and none smokers have a right to be in the same building but one does not have the right to slowly poison the other.

Any particular reason for this kind of bigotry, or is it just more random ramblings?


Why? Because the wonderful 'market forces' don't always follow public opinion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have consumer advocacy groups and government involvement in the economy. Who would decide whether to have a smoking and a non-smoking pub? All (bar two) the locals where I live allow smoking indoors, although most people don't smoke. The first is always heaving, and the second sells crap beer. Seems to be a oligarchy of the publicans, not the democracy of the majority.

Oh, and tell me you aren't October3.

The owners of a private business perhaps? People vote everyday with their wallets. If so many non-smokers want non smoking pubs they woud prosper.

And by the way I am not October3 - merely a Richard Bachman.

Oh, he doesn't believe in that. When I raised earlier in the thread, he just flamed me repeatedly.

EDIT: OMFG TIME WARP!!!!!!

I just want to know how you managed to quote me before I had posted :confused:

So what is wrong with allowing market forces to regulate smoking in pubs? Have publicans choose wether or not to allow smoking. Those people who do not mind working in a smoking pub can work there and those who do not wish to work in a smokey environment can work in a non smoking pub (although they can't work in 'The Strand' - Preston's first no smoking pub as it went bust).

Health and Safety leglislation for workers is not a market force issue.

The onus is not on the employee to accept the risk without mitigation - the onus is on the employer to reduce the risk to "as low as reasonably practable". This is so that an employer can't financially blackmail someone into risking their health or life - it recognises that in many cases the employer holds most if not all the power and frequently employers have been shown to abuse that power.

I also like how people point out 'X' pub went bust. Pubs have been going bust for years, and new ones have been opening too - I can think of dozens in London which went bust in the last few years with no smoking ban to worry about. Just as I can think of a heap of new pubs which have recently opened.

Except only about 100 none smoking pubs opened so for the vast majority of the population this democracy of which you speak did not exist. Also your attempt to make this subject black and white is also very misleading and does not take into accout how people go out and socialise, normally with other people. Some of them are smokers some of them are not so it makes the situation more difficult than you make out. Society is not divided into two camps. Your idea works well as that, a whimsical idea which is poorly thought out and would not work in the real world.

However, surely it is not just about freedom of choice is it about peoples rights, and for 75% of the english population their right to be in a building which is smoke free is taken away from them. Both smokers and none smokers have a right to be in the same building but one does not have the right to slowly poison the other.

Passive smoking has never been proved to be a source of exceptional increase of cancer. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. What is wrong with 75% of pubs being non smoking and 25% being smoking? Non smokers who wish to socialise with smokers can therefore have a choice of pub, as can the smokers.

The owners of a private business perhaps? People vote everyday with their wallets. If so many non-smokers want non smoking pubs they woud prosper.

And by the way I am not October3 - merely a Richard Bachman.
How many more polls to I have to pull out in order to prove that not just non-smokers, but the UK as a whole, wants a ban on smoking in public places? Second, people don't vote every day with their wallets. That is BS, pure and simple. I, like many people, have little to no choice over which pub I would go to. If I want to watch the football, I have to go to a smoke-filled pub, pure and simple. As such, I, along with most non smokers, put up with it. It is not a simple black and white case of either go to a smoke free pub or not at all.

I just want to know how you managed to quote me before I had posted
By being amazing of course.

How many more polls to I have to pull out in order to prove that not just non-smokers, but the UK as a whole, wants a ban on smoking in public places? Second, people don't vote every day with their wallets. That is BS, pure and simple. I, like many people, have little to no choice over which pub I would go to. If I want to watch the football, I have to go to a smoke-filled pub, pure and simple. As such, I, along with most non smokers, put up with it. It is not a simple black and white case of either go to a smoke free pub or not at all.


By being amazing of course.

If there was a freedom of choice there would be smoking and no smoking pubs showing the football. I went to a pub the other week to watch the Rugby where it was only being played in the non smoking areas.

You have no choice over what pub you go to?!? If there was smoking and non smoking pubs you would.

Passive smoking has never been proved to be a source of exceptional increase of cancer. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. What is wrong with 75% of pubs being non smoking and 25% being smoking? Non smokers who wish to socialise with smokers can therefore have a choice of pub, as can the smokers.
25% and 75% are completely arbitrary numbers that do not reflect the amount of smoking and non smoking pubs in the UK. To get that ratio would require government intervention to order some pubs to allow smoking and the other three quarters not to. And that would be completely pointless - they may as well just ban it altogether than go through a mess of deciding which pubs to allow smoking or not.

Even with a ban smokers would have a choice of pub. You can still enjoy a drink with your mates and socialise, but smoke outside.

And with your complete steaming bullshit on passive smoking:
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/3235820.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2925633.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998
http://www.exeter.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4300
http://www.50plushealth.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1183
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm?mins=347
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,526991,00.html

If there was a freedom of choice there would be smoking and no smoking pubs showing the football. I went to a pub the other week to watch the Rugby where it was only being played in the non smoking areas.

You have no choice over what pub you go to?!? If there was smoking and non smoking pubs you would.
And deciding between smoking and non smoking pubs would require government intervention to decide which pubs are which (clearly the free market does not provide both), opening up a whole new barrel of worms. How would government decide which pubs do and don't allow smoking? It would be impossible to do so while satisfying everyone. Someone's non smoking local could become smoking and vice versa.

And your experience over rugby proves my point - separate smoking and non smoking areas and pubs do not provide choice.

25% and 75% are completely arbitrary numbers that do not reflect the amount of smoking and non smoking pubs in the UK. To get that ratio would require government intervention to order some pubs to allow smoking and the other three quarters not to. And that would be completely pointless - they may as well just ban it altogether than go through a mess of deciding which pubs to allow smoking or not.

Even with a ban smokers would have a choice of pub. You can still enjoy a drink with your mates and socialise, but smoke outside.

And with your complete steaming bullshit on passive smoking:
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/3235820.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2925633.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998
http://www.exeter.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4300
http://www.50plushealth.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1183
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm?mins=347
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,526991,00.html


Like I said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I see you chose ASH - the anti smocking cnuts as a source.
Why does it seem so bad to allow some pubs to allow smoking. Parliamentary time is used to decide whether or not dogs can be used to kill foxes, if trident should be renewed and how much MP's should be paid. Surely a proportion of the population deserves a bit of time to duscuss wether or not they should be allowed a smoke with their pint indoors.

Passive smoking has never been proved to be a source of exceptional increase of cancer.



Who said anything about just Cancer?


http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html


Introduction

Breathing other people's smoke is called passive, involuntary or secondhand smoking. The non-smoker breathes "sidestream" smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a major source of indoor air pollution.



What's in the smoke?

Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. [1] Many potentially toxic gases are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from sidestream smoke. [2] The particulate phase includes tar (itself composed of many chemicals), nicotine, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene. The gas phase includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein. Some of these have marked irritant properties and some 60 are known or suspected carcinogens (cancer causing substances). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A (known human) carcinogen along with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas. 1



How does this affect the passive smoker?

Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. [3]



In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8]



Deaths from secondhand smoke

Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades. [9]



Risk to young children

Almost half of all children in the UK are exposed to tobacco smoke at home. [10] Passive smoking increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis, pneumonia and bronchiolitis in children. One study found that in households where both parents smoke, young children have a 72 per cent increased risk of respiratory illnesses. [11] Passive smoking causes a reduction in lung function and increased severity in the symptoms of asthma in children, and is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children. [12] [13] Passive smoking is also associated with middle ear infection in children as well as possible cardiovascular impairment and behavioural problems. [14]



Infants of parents who smoke are more likely to be admitted to hospital for bronchitis and pneumonia in the first year of life. More than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year because of the effects of passive smoking. [15] Passive smoking during childhood predisposes children to developing chronic obstructive airway disease and cancer as adults. 15 Exposure to tobacco smoke may also impair olfactory function in children. A Canadian study found that passive smoking reduced children’s ability to detect a wide variety of odours compared with children raised in non-smoking households. [16] Passive smoking may also affect children’s mental development. A US study found deficits in reading and reasoning skills among children even at low levels of smoke exposure. [17]

For further information regarding the health risks of exposure to secondhand smoke for adults and children see the ‘Going smoke-free’ report by the Royal College of Physicians. [18]



Exposure to passive smoking during pregnancy is an independent risk factor for low birth weight.13 One study has also shown that babies exposed to their mother’s tobacco smoke before they are born grow up with reduced lung function [19] Parental smoking is also a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome (cot death).



http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998


Secondhand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK, according to a new study, including the death of one pub or bar worker every week.

Konrad Jamrozik at Imperial College, London, UK, says exposure to secondhand smoke in all workplaces leads to the deaths of around 700 people a year.

He examined all deaths in 2002 from lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke in British people under the age of 65, and combined this data with data on exposure to smoking at home and work.

The study is the first to calculate deaths as a result of secondhand smoke in bar staff, says Jamrozik. But it "is a conservative estimate" he told New Scientist. The findings, presented at a conference at the Royal College of Physicians in London on Monday, have led to renewed calls for a public smoking ban in the UK.

"The estimates look very much in line with what other studies have shown," says Robert West, director of tobacco studies at University College London. "They add more weight to what is now pretty much an overwhelming argument in favour of a public smoking ban."

Deborah Arnott, director of campaign group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) UK agrees: "These are truly shocking figures. They show the urgent need for a new law to end smoking in the workplace."
Active and passive

Jamrozik's mathematical analysis used an epidemiological model to combine several sets of data. Death figures came from the UK Office for National Statistics for 2002 and information on what proportion of the population are exposed to smoke at work and at home was provided by ASH.

For example, about 30 per cent of the UK population smokes, while 42 per cent of under 65s are exposed to secondhand smoke at home. Eleven per cent of under 65s are exposed to other people's smoke in their workplace.

Combining this data with information on the relative risk of disease among, active smokers, passive smokers and non-smokers allowed Jamrozik to calculate estimates for the number of deaths caused by passive smoking.

People working in pubs and bars are especially at risk as they are exposed to three times the levels of smoke that a non-smoker living with a smoker experiences. As a result, these workers are almost twice as likely to die from related diseases than those exposed to smoke at home.
Factory fumes

Pro-smoking group Forest dispute the figures. "Once again we are presented with estimates, calculations and 'likely risk'. Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people?" says director Simon Clark.

But West says that even allowing for a margin of error in Jamrozik's study, the figures are "pretty horrific". He told New Scientist: "If factories were putting out fumes that caused that level of death, they would be closed down."

He adds that the public smoking bans in Ireland and New York did not lead to "mass insurrections" as feared.

Carol Black, president of the RCP notes: "Making these places smoke-free not only protects vulnerable staff and the public, it will also help over 300,000 people in Britain to stop smoking completely."

I highlighted what I consider to be the important bits.

Yours welcome to follow the links like I did and find out that all information included in these links are from valid scientific studies. So maybe there is not a huge increase in caner, but it has been proven time and time again that there is a link.

Aside from cancer there is also evidence of further poisoning for people who are passive smokers.

Surely a proportion of the population deserves a bit of time to duscuss wether or not they should be allowed a smoke with their pint indoors.

They did that is how the ban came about :D

If there was a freedom of choice there would be smoking and no smoking pubs showing the football. I went to a pub the other week to watch the Rugby where it was only being played in the non smoking areas.

You have no choice over what pub you go to?!? If there was smoking and non smoking pubs you would.

And again -The Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 is not about providing freedom of choice to the market.

It is about (amoung other things):
1. Securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work.
2. Protecting persons other than persons at work against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;
3. Controlling the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances from premises of any class prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.

And requires the Employer to (amoung other things):
1. To ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
2. Ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances.

*snip*.

Thank you for your input - gues what - no one escapes from life alive. I am talking about FREEDOM OF CHOICE. I have seen no positive argument against having smoking pubs for smokers. Just a bunch of whiney rhetoric about the dangers one of the many poisons people are exposed to in everyday life have on your health. I, as a private tax paying citizen cannot open a licensed premesis soley for the use of smokers to have beer. Can anyone really justify the fact that a bunch of private citizens cannot indulge in indoor smoking in a social environment?

Thank you for your input - gues what - no one escapes from life alive. I am talking about FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
.

Firstly you decision to avoid what I linked and avoid the issue speaks volumes and secondly no you were not talking about freedom and choice you were stating that passive smoking does not cause cancer which is what I was answering to. I'll quote yourself just to remind you.

Passive smoking has never been proved to be a source of exceptional increase of cancer. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. What is wrong with 75% of pubs being non smoking and 25% being smoking? Non smokers who wish to socialise with smokers can therefore have a choice of pub, as can the smokers.

See, so it would appear that you do not even know what your own arguement is.

Can anyone really justify the fact that a bunch of private citizens cannot indulge in indoor smoking in a social environment?

You can it is called your own home.

As far as I am concerned if you want to open a smokers only pub by which you every person in the place is a smoker (staff as well) and will be smoking in the local then as far as I can see it you are more then welcome. However, the problem the government has is this, they have an obligation to look after everyones health and the ban is not only there is protect none smokers but to encourage smokers to quit. Now you can dispute to rights and wrongs of that but that is what the ban is designed to do and that is why the powers that be do not want smokers only places.

But if you had paid any attention to the debate on this issue you would know that the government put a lot o ideas about what should and should not be convered in the ban. For once instead of a fudge they actually produced a workable piece of legislation. What you are proposing is would produce more regulations which is something the government, licence holders and people in general wish to avoid.

But I wonder is this, there are a lot of smokers complaing about this ban, but you know I wonder for how long these people have been going into pubs and asking if they can smoke, would anyone else mind? From my own experince I doubt very few did, and yet now, when their own choice is taken away from them they are up in arms, of course forgetting the choice that they took away from other people.

Like I said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I see you chose ASH - the anti smocking cnuts as a source.
And you ignore all the others. Quite a crude way to dismiss a source though. If I cite a source showing that gravity keeps my feet firmly pointed to the earth, that there are 7 days in a week on average, and that sulphuric acid is corrosive, is that lies, damn lies and statistics too? Passive smoking causes the same chemicals as active smoking, which have the same effects. That is the consensus among health officials.

Why does it seem so bad to allow some pubs to allow smoking. Parliamentary time is used to decide whether or not dogs can be used to kill foxes, if trident should be renewed and how much MP's should be paid. Surely a proportion of the population deserves a bit of time to duscuss wether or not they should be allowed a smoke with their pint indoors.
They were given time to decide, and, taking the nation's health and the majority's views to consideration, decided all should be smoke free. Going through every pub in the country to decide which to be smoking and non smoking, as you proposed, would take up so much parliamentary time and would up so deeply in local politics that it would be impossible to do.

Firstly you decision to avoid what I linked and avoid the issue speaks volumes and secondly no you were not talking about freedom and choice you were stating that passive smoking does not cause cancer which is what I was answering to. I'll quote yourself just to remind you.



See, so it would appear that you do not even know what your own arguement is.



You can it is called your own home.

As far as I am concerned if you want to open a smokers only pub by which you every person in the place is a smoker (staff as well) and will be smoking in the local then as far as I can see it you are more then welcome. However, the problem the government has is this, they have an obligation to look after everyones health and the ban is not only there is protect none smokers but to encourage smokers to quit. Now you can dispute to rights and wrongs of that but that is what the ban is designed to do and that is why the powers that be do not want smokers only places.

But if you had paid any attention to the debate on this issue you would know that the government put a lot o ideas about what should and should not be convered in the ban. For once instead of a fudge they actually produced a workable piece of legislation. What you are proposing is would produce more regulations which is something the government, licence holders and people in general wish to avoid.

But I wonder is this, there are a lot of smokers complaing about this ban, but you know I wonder for how long these people have been going into pubs and asking if they can smoke, would anyone else mind? From my own experince I doubt very few did, and yet now, when their own choice is taken away from them they are up in arms, of course forgetting the choice that they took away from other people.

So A private citizen cannot open a drinking establishment in which people can smoke. The labour government in England has imposed hundreds of new laws that affect how you live. How can you be so pathetic and not allow some places to allow smoking?? Smoking pubs = choice. Does not smoking make people have shit for brains?

Thank you for your input - gues what - no one escapes from life alive.
So murderers should be able to kill at will? After all - we're only going to die anyway. Passive smoking - a killer - is little different.

I am talking about FREEDOM OF CHOICE. I have seen no positive argument against having smoking pubs for smokers.
There are none so blind as those that will no see.

Just a bunch of whiney rhetoric about the dangers one of the many poisons people are exposed to in everyday life have on your health.
I am not exposed to the toxic crap your foul smoke shit every day of my life, thank you very much, and neither do I want to be. That's the entire fucking point. If I wanted to fill my lungs with battery acid, benzene and Cyanide, I would have taken up smoking ages ago.

Likewise, I only see damned selfish smokers whining about having to take others' health into consideration.

I, as a private tax paying citizen cannot open a licensed premesis soley for the use of smokers to have beer. Can anyone really justify the fact that a bunch of private citizens cannot indulge in indoor smoking in a social environment?
Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here, would I?

And you ignore all the others. Quite a crude way to dismiss a source though. If I cite a source showing that gravity keeps my feet firmly pointed to the earth, that there are 7 days in a week on average, and that sulphuric acid is corrosive, is that lies, damn lies and statistics too? Passive smoking causes the same chemicals as active smoking, which have the same effects. That is the consensus among health officials.


They were given time to decide, and, taking the nation's health and the majority's views to consideration, decided all should be smoke free. Going through every pub in the country to decide which to be smoking and non smoking, as you proposed, would take up so much parliamentary time and would up so deeply in local politics that it would be impossible to do.



I am not proposing going through every pub to decide what pubs should allow smoking. But you are saying none should. How would a smoking permit for a licensed premesis be unworkable? The government are spending millions on having smoking wardens for pubs - if certain pubs could be granted smoking status these would be unnecessary.

How much more difficult is it enforcing fox hunting bans than making sure only smoking pubs allow smoking?

So A private citizen cannot open a drinking establishment in which people can smoke.
No. People can smoke, you just have to nip outside. Or, you invite them to your home and socialise with your friends there, if where you smoke indoors or outdoors bothers you so.

The labour government in England has imposed hundreds of new laws that affect how you live.
Actually, that Labour government in the UK. UK =/= England. And, guess what, that's what government's do, Sherlock!

How can you be so pathetic and not allow some places to allow smoking??
Read the last 11/12 pages of this thread.

Smoking pubs = choice. Does not smoking make people have shit for brains?
More flaming. Do you actually address the points raised, or just ramble on incessantly?

So murderers should be able to kill at will? After all - we're only going to die anyway. Passive smoking - a killer - is little different.


There are none so blind as those that will no see.


I am not exposed to the toxic crap your foul smoke shit every day of my life, thank you very much, and neither do I want to be. That's the entire fucking point. If I wanted to fill my lungs with battery acid, benzene and Cyanide, I would have taken up smoking ages ago.

Likewise, I only see damned selfish smokers whining about having to take others' health into consideration.


Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here, would I?

Your disregard for freedom is astounding. Why would you deny me my choice to smoke in a pub with like minded people whilst you drink in another with like minded non-smokers? This kind of dictat is very facist.

Does not smoking make people have shit for brains?

I don't know. Which out of two groups spend their money on something which makes them stink, stains their teeth and fingers and damages their health?

I don't know. Which out of two groups spend their money on something which makes them stink, stains their teeth and fingers and damages their health?

That's frreedom of choice - who drinks things that poison their liver?

I am not proposing going through every pub to decide what pubs should allow smoking. But you are saying none should. How would a smoking permit for a licensed premesis be unworkable?
That simple 'choice' thing you bang on about. There would have to be, as you proposed earlier, a limit on the amount of smoking permits doled out. Because of this, someone, i.e. Parliament, would have to decide which pubs could and could not have smoking inside. Government and local MPs would therefore come under intense lobbying from groups who want the Fox & Hounds smoke free and those who want to smoke inside, making it a large and time consuming political issue.

Also, locals could well see their local non smoking pub become smoking and vice versa, reducing choice for non smokers, since smokers can smoke outside of non smoking pubs, but non smokers have to smoke passively in smoking pubs.

The government are spending millions on having smoking wardens for pubs - if certain pubs could be granted smoking status these would be unnecessary.
They would still be necessary to watch the non smoking pubs, if these wardens even exist at all.

How much more difficult is it enforcing fox hunting bans than making sure only smoking pubs allow smoking?
Who knows? Laws are not passed simply because of their relative ease or difficulty of enforcement.

Why would you deny me my choice to smoke in a pub with like minded people whilst you drink in another with like minded non-smokers? This kind of dictat is very facist.

Read the thread, October3.

Your disregard for freedom is astounding.
The universal dying cry of someone on the losing end of a debate.

Why would you deny me my choice to smoke in a pub with like minded people whilst you drink in another with like minded non-smokers? This kind of dictat is very facist.
We also deny the rights of like minded paedophiles to look at child pornography in private. Is that fascist too? The same logic applies.

Ifreann, I don't know how you did it, but you're clearly for the fucking win.

I'm in ur thred, steelin ur pollz
I have a bigger e-wang than the op.
Your disregard for freedom is astounding.
Yes, your side really is the side of freedom. Beacause as we all know, the freedom to smoke in the pub is way more important to freedom to earn a living in safe conditions. That's just obvious :rolleyes:
Why would you deny me my choice to smoke in a pub with like minded people whilst you drink in another with like minded non-smokers?
Because you cant scream about freedom of choice and expect us to let you do what you want. Your freedom cannot encroach on the freedom of others.
This kind of dictat is very facist.
My Godwin sense is tingling....

Your disregard for freedom is astounding. Why would you deny me my choice to smoke in a pub with like minded people whilst you drink in another with like minded non-smokers? This kind of dictat is very facist.

And you are still ignoring that the basis behind the leglistlation is not about the casual enjoyment of punters but a health and safety at work issue.

This leglislation is to protect the health and safety of employees at work and to protect persons other than those at work from the effects of the work taking place.

The employer is under a legal duty to remove or lower the risk as "far as reasonably practable" - and they can lower it entirely by simply requireing it's smoking customers to step into the well ventilated area they had installed to their pub during construction called "the great outdoors". Which is very reasonably practable as pubs all across Scotland and Ireland have discovered.

So A private citizen cannot open a drinking establishment in which people can smoke. The labour government in England has imposed hundreds of new laws that affect how you live. How can you be so pathetic and not allow some places to allow smoking??

Guess what that is what governments do, make laws to change things which occure, now depending on what side of the law you stand these can be good or bad, but that is what governments do.

Smoking pubs = choice. Does not smoking make people have shit for brains?

Is this a reasoned response or simply a statement that you do not have an reasonable arguement?

So A private citizen cannot open a drinking establishment in which people can smoke. The labour government in England has imposed hundreds of new laws that affect how you live. How can you be so pathetic and not allow some places to allow smoking?? Smoking pubs = choice. Does not smoking make people have shit for brains?

Slavery=choice
Murder=choice
Rape=choice

Hmmmm, seems choice isn't everything.

I have a bigger e-wang than the op.

Yes, your side really is the side of freedom. Beacause as we all know, the freedom to smoke in the pub is way more important to freedom to earn a living in safe conditions. That's just obvious :rolleyes:

Because you cant scream about freedom of choice and expect us to let you do what you want. Your freedom cannot encroach on the freedom of others.
My Godwin sense is tingling....


How can denying people the right to smoke in a smoking only pub with other people who smoke, and allowing non smokers to drink in a none smoking pub be a bad thing? Smoking isn't good for people, so let those that do carry on in their own environment (ie - a smoking pub). It can't possibly encroach on a non smoker then unless they intentionally go into the smoking pub. Which is their own fault.

My freedom cannot encroach on the freedom of others but a non smokers freedom can encroach on mine?

Slavery=choice
Murder=choice
Rape=choice

Hmmmm, seems choice isn't everything.

You are equating smoking with slavery, rape and murder. Hmmn, maybe my opinion that people's reaction to smoking is disproportionate was right?

The universal dying cry of someone on the losing end of a debate.


We also deny the rights of like minded paedophiles to look at child pornography in private. Is that fascist too? The same logic applies.


Again someone is equating a perverted crime against children to a grown adult choosing to indulge in a vice that under the correct circumstances only affects themselves and others of a similar persuasion. Disproportionate and unreasonable. logic can't even see the line you have croosed. The line is a dot to your logic.

Again someone is equating a perverted crime against children to a grown adult choosing to indulge in a vice that under the correct circumstances only affects themselves and others of a similar persuasion. Disproportionate and unreasonable. logic can't even see the line you have croosed. The line is a dot to your logic.

You are equating smoking with slavery, rape and murder. Hmmn, maybe my opinion that people's reaction to smoking is disproportionate was right?
You clearly miss the point every single time. Nobody equated smoking with rape, murder, or anything similar. All that Ifreann and I did was to apply the logic you use to 'justify' subjecting others to second hand smoke to a different scenario, in order to prove that it is flawed.

We also deny the rights of like minded paedophiles to look at child pornography in private. Is that fascist too? The same logic applies.That's a weak argument, the two don't really fit together. A child is always exploited in the creation of child pornography. Whereas smoking in a room with children in is harmful to the child in the consumption of the cigarette.

The reason child pornography is illegal to consume is because it is an attempt to reduce demand for such material and hence reduce production. It also means consumers can be arrested and questioned as to how and where they obtained such material so that tracking down the producers can be made easier.

That's a weak argument, the two don't really fit together. A child is always exploited in the creation of child pornography. Whereas smoking in a room with children in is harmful to the child in the consumption of the cigarette.

The reason child pornography is illegal to consume is because it is an attempt to reduce demand for such material and hence reduce production. It also means consumers can be arrested and questioned as to how and where they obtained such material so that tracking down the producers can be made easier.
True, I suppose. I rushed that one off last night, and clearly didn't think it through. However, I still think the 'if you ban XYZ, it's fascist' line is completely ridiculous.

A smoking pub for smokers is not subjecting any one who does not want to be subjected to secondhand smoke to secondhand smoke.
And both I and others have already gone through pages showing this is unworkable in practice and provides no choice for non smokers especially.

EDIT:Warped ya;)

You clearly miss the point every single time. Nobody equated smoking with rape, murder, or anything similar. All that Ifreann and I did was to apply the logic you use to 'justify' subjecting others to second hand smoke to a different scenario, in order to prove that it is flawed.

A smoking pub for smokers is not subjecting any one who does not want to be subjected to secondhand smoke to secondhand smoke.

And both I and others have already gone through pages showing this is unworkable in practice and provides no choice for non smokers especially.

EDIT:Warped ya;)

No choice for non smokers?? How about the non-smoking pub? Market forces have shown this is a viable option. In Hawkshead there are 4 pubs. The Sun Inn is a non smoking pub. The others allow smoking in certain areas. The Sun Inn is a good pub, and so are the others (except the 'Queens' which tends to smell of old people's wee). A community with choice. how is that unworkable?

True, I suppose. I rushed that one off last night, and clearly didn't think it through. However, I still think the 'if you ban XYZ, it's fascist' line is completely ridiculous.Meh, sometimes it's true, but not in this case. In this case I agree with you, and not this Hunter ST guy.

Smoking in closed environments can have long term effects on those who choose not to smoke. Ergo banning smoking is not fascist.

Gay couples kissing each in public is consensual between the couple and has no long term effects on those who may see such behaviour. Banning gay couples from kissing in public is fascist.

Well that's my take at least.

A smoking pub for smokers is not subjecting any one who does not want to be subjected to secondhand smoke to secondhand smoke.

Firstly: Please learn how to quote.

Secondly - I have pointd out the legal reason for the ban in the context of health and safety at work, and provided you with the background leglislation on which it is based a number of times. Can I take your continual refusal to address the actual reason for the smoking ban as you just not having a point?

The reason for the ban is that an employer must ensure that any risks to health the health of their staff and the public "as far as reasonably practable". It is very very reasonably practable to remove smoke from a bar - just ask the smokers to step outside for 5 minutes when they want to light up - this has worked very well in Scotland and Ireland. Further to this - the issue of staff consenting to a removable risk - under the helth and safety at work act an employee cannot be required to consent to a reasonably removable risk or face losing their job - hence you cannot require staff (even smokers) to accept the risk that comes with second hand smoke while at work as part of their terms of employment.

Meh, sometimes it's true, but not in this case. In this case I agree with you, and not this Hunter ST guy.

Smoking in closed environments can have long term effects on those who choose not to smoke. Ergo banning smoking is not fascist.

Gay couples kissing each in public is consensual between the couple and has no long term effects on those who may see such behaviour. Banning gay couples from kissing in public is fascist.

Well that's my take at least.


Then have smoking and non smoking pubs! Then smoking in enclosed environments has long term effects on those that choose to smoke.
Consensual in public - much like adults consenting to have a pub they can smoke in?

Then have smoking and non smoking pubs! Then smoking in enclosed environments has long term effects on those that choose to smoke.
Consensual in public - much like adults consenting to have a pub they can smoke in?I could agree to that if the problems associated with the employees of the pub could be sorted out. I think there would have to be strict rules about the working conditions of such employees. I wouldn't accept a law that said pubs can only hire smokers as many people might be so tight for cash that they lie about their smoking habits just to get the job.

Firstly: Please learn how to quote.

Secondly - I have pointd out the legal reason for the ban in the context of health and safety at work, and provided you with the background leglislation on which it is based a number of times. Can I take your continual refusal to address the actual reason for the smoking ban as you just not having a point?

The reason for the ban is that an employer must ensure that any risks to health the health of their staff and the public "as far as reasonably practable". It is very very reasonably practable to remove smoke from a bar - just ask the smokers to step outside for 5 minutes when they want to light up - this has worked very well in Scotland and Ireland. Further to this - the issue of staff consenting to a removable risk - under the helth and safety at work act an employee cannot be required to consent to a reasonably removable risk or face losing their job - hence you cannot require staff (even smokers) to accept the risk that comes with second hand smoke while at work as part of their terms of employment.

Firstly - f*ck off

Secondley - The Scots are porridge wogs at best, and their hypocritical involvement in voting for university charges for England whilst their own universities remain fee free denies them the right to take the moral high ground. The Scots are twice as likely to die from drink than the rest of the U.K. The life expectancy of some areas of Glasgow is 55. The battered kebab was an invention of Scotland - so health issues are a mixed bag in the North north of England.


Ireland - The issue of non smoking pubs is an issue for urban areas. Can you imagine a rural pub 20 miles from anywhere is going to enforce it? The local constable will be a regular and the whole place will be free to act as they wish. This is just the same as donkey passports. We will be the only sad bastards to enforce these European laws when the more relaxed continent generally lies back and says sod off.

Firstly - f*ck off

Secondley - The Scots are porridge wogs at best, and their hypocritical involvement in voting for university charges for England whilst their own universities remain fee free denies them the right to take the moral high ground. The Scots are twice as likely to die from drink than the rest of the U.K. The life expectancy of some areas of Glasgow is 55. The battered kebab was an invention of Scotland - so health issues are a mixed bag in the North north of England.


Ireland - The issue of non smoking pubs is an issue for urban areas. Can you imagine a rural pub 20 miles from anywhere is going to enforce it? The local constable will be a regular and the whole place will be free to act as they wish. This is just the same as donkey passports. We will be the only sad bastards to enforce these European laws when the more relaxed continent generally lies back and says sod off.
Lets see...

Abuse and Racism while 100% failing to address the actual reason for banning smoking in public places.

So you don't actually have a point.

I thought so.

Lets see...

Abuse and Racism while 100% failing to address the actual reason for banning smoking in public places.

So you don't actually have a point.

I thought so.

It's taken you this long to work that out? :eek: :)

Lets see...

Abuse and Racism while 100% failing to address the actual reason for banning smoking in public places.

So you don't actually have a point.

I thought so.

I have many points. Not allowing smoking pubs is political laziness. The health issues raised are an indication of mixed values. People cannot die of smoking but obecity and alcohoism are fine? The smoking issue is a scapegoating of a particular kind of people. Being Scottish or Irish is not a race (it's a lethergic jog at best). If the issue was to get as many people to live as long as possible then we should ban fatty foods, meat, driving cars, beer, fridgefreezers and generally being human. We would also sort out pensions.
Those that would not allow smoking pubs are denying the very freedoms we fought for during the war against Germany. A certain Adolf proposed a smoking ban but was defeated. It took several nations to stop him creating a super race and killing all the Jews.

It's taken you this long to work that out? :eek: :)

Does it take effort to be that ignorant at 11:30 on a Sunday morning?

I have many points. Not allowing smoking pubs is political laziness. The health issues raised are an indication of mixed values. People cannot die of smoking but obecity and alcohoism are fine? The smoking issue is a scapegoating of a particular kind of people. Being Scottish or Irish is not a race (it's a lethergic jog at best). If the issue was to get as many people to live as long as possible then we should ban fatty foods, meat, driving cars, beer, fridgefreezers and generally being human. We would also sort out pensions.


You see your ability to not see what is occuring in the real world lets you down.

We have known about smoking being dangerous for ones health for 50 or so years, at first nothing was done about it buT slowly over time as we have seen what occures to our bodies as we smoke the matter has come to a head and has come to the smoking ban.

Now to take your point about drink of obecity, how many programs are there on TV about food and how to be healthy? This is similar to what was occuring 20 odd years ago about smoking. The food labeling telling you what is and is not good for you is a kin (although not the same as) the labels on ciggerettes telling you that smoking kills. Of course the two issues are not the same, as I could eat a MC donalds once a month and eat healthy the rest of the month, resulting that the affects of the McDonalds would be reduced. With smoking you are an addict you smoke X number of ciggerettes a day everyday and the affects are long lasting.

Now the problem with eating well is that some people are addcited to fast food, these are the same as smokers and I can tell you that the ways things are going people who abuse their bodies through obcity will come under the same sort of issues that smokers come under now. Now currently the market is deciding the issue with the growth in healther foods in the UK, at some point thought there will be people who will still eat crap and the government will introduce harsher laws for th standards of food quality.

Those that would not allow smoking pubs are denying the very freedoms we fought for during the war against Germany. A certain Adolf proposed a smoking ban but was defeated. It took several nations to stop him creating a super race and killing all the Jews.

GODWIN FTW!!!!

Does it take effort to be that ignorant at 11:30 on a Sunday morning?

If only you had as many good arguements as you did insults, people might actually take you seriously.

You see your ability to not see what is occuring in the real world lets you down.

We have known about smoking being dangerous for ones health for 50 or so years, at first nothing was done about it buT slowly over time as we have seen what occures to our bodies as we smoke the matter has come to a head and has come to the smoking ban.

Now to take your point about drink of obecity, how many programs are there on TV about food and how to be healthy? This is similar to what was occuring 20 odd years ago about smoking. The food labeling telling you what is and is not good for you is a kin (although not the same as) the labels on ciggerettes telling you that smoking kills. Of course the two issues are not the same, as I could eat a MC donalds once a month and eat healthy the rest of the month, resulting that the affects of the McDonalds would be reduced. With smoking you are an addict you smoke X number of ciggerettes a day everyday and the affects are long lasting.

Now the problem with eating well is that some people are addcited to fast food, these are the same as smokers and I can tell you that the ways things are going people who abuse their bodies through obcity will come under the same sort of issues that smokers come under now. Now currently the market is deciding the issue with the growth in healther foods in the UK, at some point thought there will be people who will still eat crap and the government will introduce harsher laws for th standards of food quality.



GODWIN FTW!!!!

A fact of life - you will die! One day you will take our last breath, the death rattle will occur and your body will no longer contain your immortal soul. People are born, they live and then they die. The bit in between is called life. some people choose to indulge in activities that shorten the bit in between. Whilst other enjoy spending their life stopping people who shorten the bit inbetween from doing what they want. There are more issues than smoking. Whilst we waste parliement time on reducing individual carbon footprints China is growing exponentially. Modern life needs glasses in order to regain foscus on the real issues.

I have many points. Not allowing smoking pubs is political laziness. The health issues raised are an indication of mixed values. People cannot die of smoking but obecity and alcohoism are fine?
However the person serving someone a beefburger does not suffer from obesity.

Being Scottish or Irish is not a race (it's a lethergic jog at best).
Ethnicism then if you really want to be anal...

Although a number of Scots and Irish might disagree with you.


Those that would not allow smoking pubs are denying the very freedoms we fought for during the war against Germany. A certain Adolf proposed a smoking ban but was defeated. It took several nations to stop him creating a super race and killing all the Jews.

Is Godwin really the best you can do?

So - still nothing to actually address the actual reason. Well - a poorly made strawman that does not actually address the issue.

And you still do not have a valid point to make against the actual reasons for the ban.

However the person serving someone a beefburger does not suffer from obesity.


Ethnicism then if you really want to be anal...

Although a number of Scots and Irish might disagree with you.



Is Godwin really the best you can do?

So - still nothing to actually address the actual reason. Well - a poorly made strawman that does not actually address the issue.

And you still do not have a valid point to make against the actual reasons for the ban.


Godwin was from a previous post made by someone else - not my quote.

The reasons against the total ban have been made very clear by my arguements. Let consenting adults chose to smoke in private bars, with those that work in them knowing the full risk of doing so. The legislation is too black and white to allow individual choice. There are several private members only cigar clubs that will be closed by this legislation and yet the bars in the houses of parliament will still allow smoking due to the fact that it is a palace and not subject to all the laws of the land. How can any reasonable person be against personal choice?

The petition has 90 signatures. What will the government do against such united public outrage?

The petition has 90 signatures. What will the government do against such united public outrage?

90 signatures?! When I first signed it had about 60. I also linked another petition that had around 3000 signatures. For a mostly hidden petition site that is quite a few. It took public anouncement for the road pricing petition to get 1.8 milion signatures. 1 million people marched in London against the war in Iraq. Yet public opinion did not matter there. Given the proportion of voting statistics v political demonstration democracy does not represent the popular fellings of a nation.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/prosmoking/

We need more signatures - pass on to any smokers who think the total ban in enclosed public spaces is wrong. I signed up at the beginning but more help is needed.

My friend, if the government completely ignored a petition with over a million signatures on it, perhaps one of the biggest petitions ever made, then yours stands no chance. That road pricing petition is the proof of what I have being saying all along - petitions do squat. If you want to make changes with a government this corrupt and out-of-touch, then by god you need to do it with guns and a large, angry mob. I just wish the British had the balls to do something like that these days.

Godwin was from a previous post made by someone else - not my quote.
Your bringing in Nazis was you Godwining yourself.


The reasons against the total ban have been made very clear by my arguements. Let consenting adults chose to smoke in private bars, with those that work in them knowing the full risk of doing so. The legislation is too black and white to allow individual choice. There are several private members only cigar clubs that will be closed by this legislation and yet the bars in the houses of parliament will still allow smoking due to the fact that it is a palace and not subject to all the laws of the land. How can any reasonable person be against personal choice?
None of these arguements address the actual reason for the ban. You are addressing reasons that the ban was not based on. Te reason the ban was not based on those reasons are because they are not very good reasons. The ban is however based on a good reason - a reason evidently so good that you have not even attempted to argue against, prefering to straman against other issues.

My friend, if the government completely ignored a petition with over a million signatures on it, perhaps one of the biggest petitions ever made, then yours stands no chance. That road pricing petition is the proof of what I have being saying all along - petitions do squat. If you want to make changes with a government this corrupt and out-of-touch, then by god you need to do it with guns and a large, angry mob. I just wish the British had the balls to do something like that these days.

So do I. In Preston there is a statue to those executed during the Lune Street riots. Can you imagine a Britain where people actually stand up for their rights? Instead we get a load of malcontents sprouting about the dangers of such a thing, waiting for the next bandwagon to hitch a ride on.

A fact of life - you will die! One day you will take our last breath, the death rattle will occur and your body will no longer contain your immortal soul. People are born, they live and then they die. The bit in between is called life. some people choose to indulge in activities that shorten the bit in between. Whilst other enjoy spending their life stopping people who shorten the bit inbetween from doing what they want. There are more issues than smoking.

Pff do you even read the posts from the last 13 or so pages?

It has been explained to you time and again that you are more than capable of smoking anywhere just as long as you do no pollute the air that non smokers breath. Of course had to spent a little more time reading this thread you would have realised this.

There are more issues than smoking.

Which can only make me question why you have spent so much time disucssing it here.:confused:

How can denying people the right to smoke in a smoking only pub with other people who smoke, and allowing non smokers to drink in a none smoking pub be a bad thing? Smoking isn't good for people, so let those that do carry on in their own environment (ie - a smoking pub). It can't possibly encroach on a non smoker then unless they intentionally go into the smoking pub. Which is their own fault.

My freedom cannot encroach on the freedom of others but a non smokers freedom can encroach on mine?
Are you really saying that the "right" to smoke is as important as the right to a healthy life? Really?
You are equating smoking with slavery, rape and murder. Hmmn, maybe my opinion that people's reaction to smoking is disproportionate was right?
No, I'm pointing out that just because it's your choice to do X does not mean that you should be allowed to do X. It's your choice to smoke in a pub after the ban, but you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Firstly - f*ck off
Falimg will get you nowhere.

Secondley - The Scots are porridge wogs at best, and their hypocritical involvement in voting for university charges for England whilst their own universities remain fee free denies them the right to take the moral high ground. The Scots are twice as likely to die from drink than the rest of the U.K. The life expectancy of some areas of Glasgow is 55. The battered kebab was an invention of Scotland - so health issues are a mixed bag in the North north of England.
The Scots are unhealthy, so you should be allowed smoke in pubs? You are smoking tobacco, right?

Ireland - The issue of non smoking pubs is an issue for urban areas. Can you imagine a rural pub 20 miles from anywhere is going to enforce it? The local constable will be a regular and the whole place will be free to act as they wish. This is just the same as donkey passports. We will be the only sad bastards to enforce these European laws when the more relaxed continent generally lies back and says sod off.

This is completely and utterly false. The smoking ban in Irealnd encompasses all workplaces for one. And it is enforced in the rural towns for another. Sorry to break your image of us as a bunch of drunken corrupt louts.

Your bringing in Nazis was you Godwining yourself.


None of these arguements address the actual reason for the ban. You are addressing reasons that the ban was not based on. Te reason the ban was not based on those reasons are because they are not very good reasons. The ban is however based on a good reason - a reason evidently so good that you have not even attempted to argue against, prefering to straman against other issues.

The reason for the ban is that smoking is not good for you. Neither are lots of things. Why do you insist of having a nanny state that does not allow consenting adults to endulge in a pasttime that may harm their health through personal choice? Last week a parachutist was killed when his parachute failed to open. Do you ban that pastime because someone died? If he had landed on someone then the Daily Mail would surely call on a ban on the "Human haill killing the nation". People blindly following a ban on personal choice are reactionary sheep. Just wait until they ban something you enjoy.

The reason for the ban is that smoking is not good for you. Neither are lots of things. Why do you insist of having a nanny state that does not allow consenting adults to endulge in a pasttime that may harm their health through personal choice? Last week a parachutist was killed when his parachute failed to open. Do you ban that pastime because someone died? If he had landed on someone then the Daily Mail would surely call on a ban on the "Human haill killing the nation". People blindly following a ban on personal choice are reactionary sheep. Just wait until they ban something you enjoy.


Strawmen for sale!!!!

The reason for the ban is that smoking is not good for you. Neither are lots of things. Why do you insist of having a nanny state that does not allow consenting adults to endulge in a pasttime that may harm their health through personal choice? Last week a parachutist was killed when his parachute failed to open. Do you ban that pastime because someone died? If he had landed on someone then the Daily Mail would surely call on a ban on the "Human haill killing the nation". People blindly following a ban on personal choice are reactionary sheep. Just wait until they ban something you enjoy.

Not only is smoking not good for you, but it's not good for those around you, it's shortening the lives of people working in the establishment in which you're smoking. The onus isn't on them to find a safe place in which to work, it's on the employer to make it safe for people to work there.

Pff do you even read the posts from the last 13 or so pages?

It has been explained to you time and again that you are more than capable of smoking anywhere just as long as you do no pollute the air that non smokers breath. Of course had to spent a little more time reading this thread you would have realised this.



Which can only make me question why you have spent so much time disucssing it here.:confused:

It has been explained to you time and time again that a smoking pub would not polute the air of non-smokers. Can you see that wood over there? Or can you not see past the trees? I have read the thread and it is filled with people who do not want private citizens to indulge in something that can be managed so that it does not affect those that chose not to smoke. Explain the problems of a smoking pub in a society that allows freedom of choice.

It has been explained to you time and time again that a smoking pub would not polute the air of non-smokers. Can you see that wood over there? Or can you not see past the trees? I have read the thread and it is filled with people who do not want private citizens to indulge in something that can be managed so that it does not affect those that chose not to smoke. Explain the problems of a smoking pub in a society that allows freedom of choice.

As I pointed out that you have not read the thread if you did you would have seen my post about seeing nothing wrong with smoking only pubs as long as smokers only visited there. What I was against in this is that is creates more legislation , more bodies to govern pubs etc. Rather than come up with a fudge the government came up with a working piece of legislation what requires smokers to pop outside for 5 minutes to light up.

You see had to spent a little more time reading and a little less throwing insults you would not look so foolish.

It has been explained to you time and time again that a smoking pub would not polute the air of non-smokers. Can you see that wood over there? Or can you not see past the trees? I have read the thread and it is filled with people who do not want private citizens to indulge in something that can be managed so that it does not affect those that chose not to smoke.

I'm sorry, I was unaware that new advances in the field of smoke management have given us Smart Smoke that knows where the smoking area is and knows to stay there.


Oh what's that, there is no such thing?

Explain the problems of a smoking pub in a society that allows freedom of choice.

Explain the problem of an establishment that allows you to assault people who are chained up in a society that allows freedom of choice.

Not only is smoking not good for you, but it's not good for those around you, it's shortening the lives of people working in the establishment in which you're smoking. The onus isn't on them to find a safe place in which to work, it's on the employer to make it safe for people to work there.

Are you terminally stupid? The people working in the establishmet of a smoking pub would know the risks and enter into the contract of employment with full knowledge. If you are a no qualification muppet and don't want to work in a smokey environment try McDonalds. I worked in a pub and for there to be ultimate safety for the employee - stop people drinking! I was there when a bunch of 5 squadies came in pissed up. They started to annoy the other punters and order lots of beer. I am 5ft 6, there was a squadie who was at least a foot taller than me. Who full of beer and testosterone had to be ushered out of the pub by his dad (coincdentaly a local). Is that not a threat to my health. Lets ban the army from pubs, or people with fists. The everyone would live forever. Are you a complete fantasist or only whe you are online?

I'm sorry, I was unaware that new advances in the field of smoke management have given us Smart Smoke that knows where the smoking area is and knows to stay there.


Oh what's that, there is no such thing?



Explain the problem of an establishment that allows you to assault people who are chained up in a society that allows freedom of choice.

That would be a smoking pub. Unless you plan to share air between pubs as some sort of publitical correctness.

Assault? - with people that know the risks of smoking and are there to enjoy it. Do you think everyone is as numb as you?

Secondley - The Scots are porridge wogs at best, and their hypocritical involvement in voting for university charges for England whilst their own universities remain fee free denies them the right to take the moral high ground. The Scots are twice as likely to die from drink than the rest of the U.K. The life expectancy of some areas of Glasgow is 55. The battered kebab was an invention of Scotland - so health issues are a mixed bag in the North north of England.
It's at times like this that I think having that slimy git Salmond as Prime Minister of an independent Scotland is almost worth having.

It has been explained to you time and time again that a smoking pub would not polute the air of non-smokers. Can you see that wood over there? Or can you not see past the trees? I have read the thread and it is filled with people who do not want private citizens to indulge in something that can be managed so that it does not affect those that chose not to smoke. Explain the problems of a smoking pub in a society that allows freedom of choice.
Right, I'll go over it. Again.

We have a mixture of smoking and non smoking pubs, with a large majority allowing smoking. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation for non smokers, who don't want smoke related diseases (yes, I don't want lung cancer, despite your 'you'll die anyway! waa!' line); health officials, and the government that picks up the NHS tab.

The current legislation bans smoking in indoor public places. This, despite what you think, does not deprive smokers of choice. Why? You can still go to a pub. You can still have a drink. You can still socialise with your mates. If you want a cigarette, you'll have to have it outside after you've finished your drink, while you're walking home, or during the warmer half of the year, drink and smoke outside. Nothing particularly arduous. Out, smoke, in, like you would do for the benefit of your work colleges.

What you propose would effectively be an attempt for a minority to still infringe on the rights of a majority. Although smokers would still have a choice of smoking and non smoking pubs, being able to smoke at both, non smokers would not have such a choice without having to compromise their health. Therefore, such a mixed system would still leave the majority at a loss. Of course, this says nothing of the bar staff who would still have their health at risk unnecessarily, and the fact that government intervention would be discriminatory between pubs (rather than apply to all) making it unworkable.

Do you think everyone is as numb as you?

Are you terminally stupid?
Do you have arguments other than flaming?

It's at times like this that I think having that slimy git Salmond as Prime Minister of an independent Scotland is almost worth having.


Right, I'll go over it. Again.

We have a mixture of smoking and non smoking pubs, with a large majority allowing smoking. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation for non smokers, who don't want smoke related diseases (yes, I don't want lung cancer, despite your 'you'll die anyway! waa!' line); health officials, and the government that picks up the NHS tab.

The current legislation bans smoking in indoor public places. This, despite what you think, does not deprive smokers of choice. Why? You can still go to a pub. You can still have a drink. You can still socialise with your mates. If you want a cigarette, you'll have to have it outside after you've finished your drink, while you're walking home, or during the warmer half of the year, drink and smoke outside. Nothing particularly arduous. Out, smoke, in, like you would do for the benefit of your work colleges.

What you propose would effectively be an attempt for a minority to still infringe on the rights of a majority. Although smokers would still have a choice of smoking and non smoking pubs, being able to smoke at both, non smokers would not have such a choice without having to compromise their health. Therefore, such a mixed system would still leave the majority at a loss. Of course, this says nothing of the bar staff who would still have their health at risk unnecessarily, and the fact that government intervention would be discriminatory between pubs (rather than apply to all) making it unworkable.

But I thought non-smokers where in the majority.

Bar staff working in a smoking pub would have their health at risk voluntarily. Tat sounds like personal choice to me.

But I thought non-smokers where in the majority.
Does that mean a majority of pubs ban smoking? no. Business rarely follows public opinion.

Bar staff working in a smoking pub would have their health at risk voluntarily. Tat sounds like personal choice to me.
I said unnecessarily, not voluntarily. Some people would lose an arm and a leg to get a job, especially for something like bar work.

Passive smoking is not really an issue if there are properly ventilated smoking areas. This ban is pushed through by an overbearing European parliament. It also contributes to passive smoking in open areas - walk past a city pub after the ban and there will be a smog of smoke outside, and fag ends. Outdoor eaters installed by pub owners to avoid the loss of trade will contribute to carbon immisions.

The Mirror is not really a valid forum for moderate discussion. The NHS gets Billions from taxes on smokers. Injuries incurred whilst exercising cost the NHS 5 times more that obecity - but they don't tax jogging!

On a final point - no-one escapes from life alive. What happened to live and let live? Pubs are not health farms they are places of relaxation and enjoyment. If proper ventilation was introduced (perhaps like emmosions test on cars for none smoking areas) there would be no problem. Smokers could enjoy themselves in the pub whilst helping to reduce the pension troubles and non smokers wouldn't have to write to the Daily Mail about smelling of burning leaves.

Firstly, the ban was passed by the UK parliament, not the European Parliament.
Secondly, there's a lot more air outdoors to dilute the smoke. And are smokers so addicted that they will huddle round the pub doors in small mobs just to get a hit?
Third, yes the Heaters (Note the H at the beginning of the word) will contribute to emissions. Just like the artificial ventilation you suggest to allow smokers to continue - most electricity is generated by polluting methods.
Smokers contribute billions in taxes - so do non-smokers. And my brother, who smokes, hasn't paid UK tax on his fags for years. He either buys vast numbers when he's abroad or buys them from 'booze cruise' illicit dealers. As do hundreds of thousands of other smokers (often in pubs)
And finally, exercise injuries do NOT cost the NHS 5 times the cost of obesity. That's just a wrong factoid. Obesity costs us much more.

Read the rest of the post. Selective quoting is as much flaming as what I have said.
No matter what you wrap it up in, it is still flaming. Selectively quoting is not - it would be flaming just as much if I included your entire post.

Do you have arguments other than flaming?

Read the rest of the post. Selective quoting is as much flaming as what I have said.

Does that mean a majority of pubs ban smoking? no. Business rarely follows public opinion.


I said unnecessarily, not voluntarily. Some people would lose an arm and a leg to get a job, especially for something like bar work.

You know what this is *does the hand thing that mister Pink does at the start of resevoir dogs* this is the world's smallest violin playing for all the poor bar staff who have to deal with smoking. Learn to type or get a job at McDonalds. If your last resort is bar work you need to re-evaluate your position in life.

Does that mean a majority of pubs ban smoking? no. Business rarely follows public opinion.


I said unnecessarily, not voluntarily. Some people would lose an arm and a leg to get a job, especially for something like bar work.

Losing an arm or a leg will not help you get a job in a bar. I've worked there and being sans limbs would not be productive.

You know what this is *does the hand thing that mister Pink does at the start of resevoir dogs* this is the world's smallest violin playing for all the poor bar staff who have to deal with smoking.
No, I'm not just violin playing for bar staff that deal with smoking. I'm violin playing for the staff who deal with:

* Coronary heart disease
* Atherosclerosis - this is the build up of fatty deposits and loss of elasticity in the artery walls which can lead to a range of diseases including strokes, peripheral vascular disease and gangrene and aortic and other aneurysms
* Buerger’s disease, which can also lead to gangrene.
* Cancer:- Lung, mouth, nose and throat, larynx, oesophagus, pancreas, bladder, stomach, leukaemia, lymphoma, kidney
* Chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other lung diseases
* Recurrent infections in the airways
* Damage and loss of efficiency in the lungs
* Peptic ulcers (these are ulcers in the stomach and duodenum) —increase both in incidence and the time they take to heal
* Tobacco amblyopia (defective vision)
* Effects on fertility.

I'll put it bluntly: your habit could, and probably is, killing others, including bar staff. Your breathtakingly selfish attitude is quite astounding.

Learn to type or get a job at McDonalds.
Offending me (again) does in no way strengthen your claim. Please, stop it.

If your last resort is bar work you need to re-evaluate your position in life.
Ditto, but consider that many who do bar work are students in top universities looking to supplement their income.

Losing an arm or a leg will not help you get a job in a bar. I've worked there and being sans limbs would not be productive.
Ha ha ha.

No, I'm not just violin playing for bar staff that deal with smoking. I'm violin playing for the staff who deal with:

* Coronary heart disease
* Atherosclerosis - this is the build up of fatty deposits and loss of elasticity in the artery walls which can lead to a range of diseases including strokes, peripheral vascular disease and gangrene and aortic and other aneurysms
* Buerger’s disease, which can also lead to gangrene.
* Cancer:- Lung, mouth, nose and throat, larynx, oesophagus, pancreas, bladder, stomach, leukaemia, lymphoma, kidney
* Chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other lung diseases
* Recurrent infections in the airways
* Damage and loss of efficiency in the lungs
* Peptic ulcers (these are ulcers in the stomach and duodenum) —increase both in incidence and the time they take to heal
* Tobacco amblyopia (defective vision)
* Effects on fertility.

I'll put it bluntly: your habit could, and probably is, killing others, including bar staff. Your breathtakingly selfish attitude is quite astounding.


Offending me (again) does in no way strengthen your claim. Please, stop it.


Ditto, but consider that many who do bar work are students in top universities looking to supplement their income.


Thats the reason behind having smoking pubs for smokers run by smokers.
And all these students looking to supliment their income could work in the non-smoking pubs. Or would that be too much freedom?The nonsmokers breathtaking selfishness to stop others enjoying themselves is astounding.

On the issue of students trying to supliment their income by working in bars - the anti-smoking legislation was brought in by the same government that brought in tuition fees at university - in direct opposition to their manifesto. Democracy at work?

Are you terminally stupid?
You should stop flaming.
The people working in the establishmet of a smoking pub would know the risks and enter into the contract of employment with full knowledge. If you are a no qualification muppet and don't want to work in a smokey environment try McDonalds. I worked in a pub and for there to be ultimate safety for the employee - stop people drinking! I was there when a bunch of 5 squadies came in pissed up. They started to annoy the other punters and order lots of beer. I am 5ft 6, there was a squadie who was at least a foot taller than me. Who full of beer and testosterone had to be ushered out of the pub by his dad (coincdentaly a local).
By your logic since police know their job is going to be dangerous when they join up, the force doesn't have to give them stab vests or asps or helmets or guns or even ensure that police stations are well built.

Is that not a threat to my health. Lets ban the army from pubs, or people with fists. The everyone would live forever. Are you a complete fantasist or only whe you are online?

Well since everyone is going to die anyway lets just throw the whole legal system out the window. The governemnt too. Who cares who's gonna run the country when you're going to die eventually, eh?

Pointing out when someone posts something moronic is not flaming.

Wouldn't that mean the statement should refer to what they posted, and not the person? I mean, one could use the word 'you' in some strange ways, but it really seems as though you accuse the poster of being terminally stupid, and not what he wrote.

You should stop flaming.

By your logic since police know their job is going to be dangerous when they join up, the force doesn't have to give them stab vests or asps or helmets or guns or even ensure that police stations are well built.



Well since everyone is going to die anyway lets just throw the whole legal system out the window. The governemnt too. Who cares who's gonna run the country when you're going to die eventually, eh?

The logical abilities of the non-smokers finaly delves into the area of the insane. This is not a black and white issue. You are saying that having smoking pubs for smokers equates to having anarchy. Pointing out when someone posts something moronic is not flaming. In fact I beleive when someone posts something viable and it is described as flaming is flaimbaiting. Which is not allowed. The term flaming has been overused by those unwilling to argue or accept criticism.

Thats the reason behind having smoking pubs for smokers run by smokers.
And I tire of pointing out that this is impossible to do in practice.

And all these students looking to supliment their income could work in the non-smoking pubs. Or would that be too much freedom?
You missed my point...again, but:

And when there are more non smoking students than non smoking pubs? When there is only a smoking pub nearby? And again, it discriminates against non smokers, since smoking staff can work in non smoking pubs (and nip outside) but non smokers could not work in a smoking pub without damaging their health.

The nonsmokers breathtaking selfishness to stop others enjoying themselves is astounding.
There is noting, nothing at all, selfish about a majority not wanting to subject to your toxic fumes.

On the issue of students trying to supliment their income by working in bars - the anti-smoking legislation was brought in by the same government that brought in tuition fees at university - in direct opposition to their manifesto. Democracy at work?
That is not related to this argument - the introduction of tuition fees neither supports nor contradicts the claim that smoking should be banned in pubs.

The logical abilities of the non-smokers finaly delves into the area of the insane. This is not a black and white issue. You are saying that having smoking pubs for smokers equates to having anarchy. Pointing out when someone posts something moronic is not flaming. In fact I beleive when someone posts something viable and it is described as flaming is flaimbaiting. Which is not allowed. The term flaming has been overused by those unwilling to argue or accept criticism.
No, the the term flaming has only been used as much as you flame by calling non-smokers like myself and Ifreann maggots, me a ****, and Ifreann a moron and terminally stupid.

The logical abilities of the non-smokers finaly delves into the area of the insane. This is not a black and white issue. You are saying that having smoking pubs for smokers equates to having anarchy. Pointing out when someone posts something moronic is not flaming. In fact I beleive when someone posts something viable and it is described as flaming is flaimbaiting. Which is not allowed. The term flaming has been overused by those unwilling to argue or accept criticism.

And how do you know whether I smoke or not? Also, poor attempt at an ad hominem.

No, I'm saying that you can't use the fact theat we're all going to die to justify not banning smoking in oubs, which you have done several times in this thread. I was demonstrating how absurd that line of reasoning can be.

And accusing someone of flaming is not flambaiting. Flamebaiting is posting something inflammatory with the intention of getting people to flame you for it. We haven't been calling you on flaming because we want you to flame us, we've been calling you on flaming so you'll stop and not get banned.

The reason for the ban is that smoking is not good for you. Neither are lots of things. Why do you insist of having a nanny state that does not allow consenting adults to endulge in a pasttime that may harm their health through personal choice? Last week a parachutist was killed when his parachute failed to open. Do you ban that pastime because someone died? If he had landed on someone then the Daily Mail would surely call on a ban on the "Human haill killing the nation". People blindly following a ban on personal choice are reactionary sheep. Just wait until they ban something you enjoy.

Incorrect. Please try again.

You still have not addressed, or even attempted to address, the actual reason for tha ban.

It has been explained to you numerous times by myself and others, and you have continually ignored it over dozens of posts prefering to instead address side issues that are not the reason for the ban.

Incorrect. Please try again.

You still have not addressed, or even attempted to address, the actual reason for tha ban.

It has been explained to you numerous times by myself and others, and you have continually ignored it over dozens of posts prefering to instead address side issues that are not the reason for the ban.

Then please sumarize the reasons for the ban in relation to private consenting adults smoking in a private smoking pub. I have seen no arguements against this,

Then please sumarize the reasons for the ban in relation to private consenting adults smoking in a private smoking pub. I have seen no arguements against this,

The ban is in keeping with Health And Safety legislation, as has been pointed out already in this thread.

Incorrect. Please try again.

You still have not addressed, or even attempted to address, the actual reason for tha ban.

It has been explained to you numerous times by myself and others, and you have continually ignored it over dozens of posts prefering to instead address side issues that are not the reason for the ban.

What is incorrect? The fellow who died through parachuting or the fact that consenting adults can enjoy smoking in enclosed spaces that serve alcohol without harming non smokers unless they intentionally enter such premesis at their own risk? The issues for the ban seem to be in restricting the freedoms of adult humans who pay tax enjoying something that a proportion of the population doe not. I am still awiting the reasons for not allowing smokers to run a smoking pub. Smoking is still legal - so don't reiterate any of your child porn of slavery nonsese.

The ban is in keeping with Health And Safety legislation, as has been pointed out already in this thread.

Recent Health and safety legislation has stopped firefighters from using step ladders in case they are unsafe. Health and safety legislation is a knee jerk reaction to the compensation culture proliferated by the U.S. Quoting H & S law is no reason to validate flawed laws when the court of appeal has already stated that such laws can be damaging to society.