|
||
|
Title: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 1st, 2007, 2:24am I have been reading Panorama subject and wonder if I am on the same planet. Tonight at local Welfare where I am the compere, I am persona non grata with the smokers even though I am taking their side but trying to put the middle ground point of view. I am a non but not ANTI smoker. I used to smoke 30-35 per day. I live with a 20 per day minimum smoker who thinks nothing of leaving fag ash on the table, kitchen worktop, computer workstation, blows smoke into my face. I rarely complain but if I do it is me who is in the wrong. Same as the smokers at the club-they are the only ones with rights. What ever happened to the rights of tolerant people. I dare say that if there is any reply to this, it will be having a go at me. AGAINl |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by petehull on Jul 1st, 2007, 10:19am :) ooooooooooo []oooooooooo Pat, on the contrary not this response anyway, I agree with your thinking. I too used to be a smoker in the days when I knew no better. Smoking is born out of the jungles of uncivilised man way back in the day's of that pirate fellow, who was it, oh yes SIR Walter Raliegh. He saw it, was Influenced by those people and brought it back to dear old blighty, you know the rest. The population of the world nowadays know, or choose to know no different, we have still got millions of followers of the habit although in the past 20 years or so many have come to realise the futality of wasting their health on something they are MADE to think is enjoyable. The newness of these laws will wear off and people will eventually settle down to the new way of treating public places and peoples airspace and those who see sense will probably benefit themselves by giving it up. Let's face it, without changes in the laws there would never be changes in the way people conduct themselves. We all had to go over to decimalisation and no one liked it, and many other examples of law change, it's like riding a bike, if you don't adjust the steering as your riding, you'll fall off. I think there will be a bit of a moan and grouse for a while but it will sort itself out like it has in other parts of the country. If you see what I mean... Pete |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 1st, 2007, 10:20am Far from it. I am a non-smoker, and have been all my life. I fail to see any 'attraction' in filling my lungs with filthy tar and smoke. I would never have married Mrs Demon, (or any other lady) if she had been a smoker. ;D From a public point of view, I'm all for the ban, as being a human being on this planet, we all breathe AIR, and thanks, but I don't want mine polluting, and to those smokers who reckon they have just as much right to smoke as I do to breathe clean air, fine, but don't do it near me. The whole thing is a minefield. Employers can no longer order a member of staff to serve meals at an outside table for example, where smoking is allowed. The customer will have to return to the pub to take his meal outside himself. Sack the employee for refusing, and you'll find yourself at the wrong end of a tribunal. As far as Pubs and Clubs go, I still think that each landlord should have been able to make the decision as to whether HIS establishment was going to be Smoking, or Non Smoking. A simple easily visible sign outside the pub, say red for a Smoking pub, and green for a Non smoking pub. Customers could then make their choices. We are all constantly under attack by interfering little Jobsworths these days, but the British Pub is an institution in this country, and I for one think it's very sad that a lot of them will, undoubtedly go under because of this across the board ban. ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by mr._floppy on Jul 1st, 2007, 11:37am LIke decimalisation and seat belt wearing, there will be a period of faux outrage and pettiness but within weeks you'll all get used to it and before long smokers, like second nature, will automatically head for the door when needing a drag. Here in Scotland the reek of fagsmoke in a enclosed public space is a thing of the past and smokers generally have , to their credit, taken it on board and have complied . Although it has got slightly daft, I'm a Railway Signaller and there is a total smoking ban in the signalbox, this means some poor smoker, alone for a 12 hour turn of duty, cannot smoke in the box unless he goes outside to the stairway. Crazy! It's a pleasure now to go to the pub, resturant or shopping mall without the reek of the devil weed. ::) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by TiberiuS on Jul 1st, 2007, 11:57am Nope, it's another example of the nanny state excercising its grip on Joe public. What's wrong with allowing the owners of the premises decide whether or not they want to allow it and displaying signs accordingly? Never smoked, never tried it, never will. But I have no problem with someone else lighting up, the majority of the chaps I work for smoke, maybe I just get used to it. No offence to anyone on here but I still think most people strongly in favour of the ban are ex-smokers who doubt their own will power or those with the attitude that they had to quit, so everyone else should have to. We get to the point now where hard drugs are almost accepted into some parts of society (albeit is not legal), now we're banning smoking - if you believe the news they're now thinking about some kind of limit/ban on alcohol too, the only reason that won't get enforced is the amount of tax the treasury would lose. I get your points chaps but whatever happened to personal choice? ::) EDIT: Spanners, just read through your post [] with the bits about letting the landlord decide. There's a few small pubs around here, hope we don't lose a lot of them through this. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by TiberiuS on Jul 1st, 2007, 11:59am on 07/01/07 at 10:19:21, petehull wrote:
Pete, what's with all these ooooo's cropping up on your posts? ;D ooooo, maybe it's me ::) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Kjetil S on Jul 1st, 2007, 12:22pm Norway has had a smoking ban in public places for almost three years now. The day it came into practice felt like someone flipping a switch, as I suddenly felt I could breathe when I went to the pub or other public places, and me being in the army at the time, we had a place were everyone gathered after "work". There wasn't an option of getting one place for smokers and another place for non-smokers. I remember the outcry from the smokers back then, but most people seem to have found an understanding for the ban now. I'm not a huge anti smoker, but I do feel that *I* should get to decide wether I breathe in smoke or not. If someone else wants to fill their lungs with tar, be my guest, but don't do it in my face, please. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Highlander on Jul 1st, 2007, 1:03pm Whats happened in a couple of my locals is that they actually have MORE customers now than they did before the ban.. I also tolerated people smoking when I was out but the choice was either to do that or stay at home.. I think a lot of people stayed at home.. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by v4-max aka Cheekyboy1 on Jul 1st, 2007, 4:14pm ok, lets see how smug you all are when people give up smoking. when your taxes go up because of the billions in lost revenue lets see how happy you are then. i for one will continue puffing on my weed. ps i have now given up drinking, as i dont see why i should have to stand outside in the cold and rain. thats 50 quid a week lost to my local publican, and i suspect alot more will do the same. still at least i will be able to afford to run the scorp. and by the way, dont be surprised if the accident rate goes up with drivers suffering withdrawal and fidgeting about behind the wheel. i for one will be paying lots more attention to my fellow so called profesional drivers for the next few weeks. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by petehull on Jul 1st, 2007, 5:09pm Quote:
Hi Tib, ::) I have just refitted a load of bits on my aircon, they are left over "o" rings so I thought I'd use them for a bit of decoration.... ;D Like it? Pete |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Highlander on Jul 1st, 2007, 5:21pm on 07/01/07 at 16:14:56, v4-max aka Cheekyboy1 wrote:
The ban is not aimed at STOPPING people smoking altogether! Neither will this be the result. No one I know has given up because of it. So the "billions in lost revenue" is not going to happen. And as for the lost revenue to the pubs.. as I stated in my last post, the pubs round here are if anything BUSIER than they were before the ban. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 1st, 2007, 7:26pm I agree with the revenue concerns (although my main point was about the general level of intolerance - on BOTH sides!). Using the govt's own figures, smoking costs the NHS £1.5 billion per year. tobacco revenue brings in £8.5. If all the smokers do pack up tomorrow, who is going to pay my share of the £7 billion shortfall? ??? Form an orderly queue please...... |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Highlander on Jul 1st, 2007, 8:40pm Again.. it is not a total smoking ban, they are only banning smoking in public places.. people are not going to give up smoking because they cant smoke inside in a public place! |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by nic on Jul 1st, 2007, 10:00pm I have had it with this ban, last night was a big blow out and I killed several million brain cells ;D and 3 wonderful cigars all aged minimum 10 years, great. I don't have a problem with the ban, I will go outside. I do have a problem with the reasoning behind it.......let me explain. Point 1, To date no one has died of "Passive smoking", why? Because there is no evidence that second hand smoking kills, none in the world apart from the World Healt Organization and they cannot get their figures right on anything. This shatters the litigation claims expected to flood in. This is just another stupid law brought in to make us sheep living in a nanny state. Point 2, Anti Smoking Lobby, or the war on tobacco. ASH- Money comes from where.............Smoking companies have to donate some of their profits to anti smoking groups. But where else does there money come from.... Pharmaceutical companies, why, well let me explain. 1.6 billion smokers in the world, tell them they are addicted and offer a cure in the form of patches, gum etc. We all pay for this as it is provided by the NHS. mmmmmmm a captive audience of smokers, let them know they are addicts and offer a treatment at cost. Join forces with the anit smoking lobby and you are doing a public service and not in it for the money, oh no. Oh and dont forget to donate to the Labour party...... Point 3, SMOKING KILLS............................SMOKING CAUSES CANCER...................Where is the proof??? It is has become ‘common knowledge’ that smoking is one of the worst things you can possibly do to yourself; ‘all the experts agree’. Of course, ‘all the experts’ once agreed that masturbation caused blindness, that homosexuality was a disease, and that marijuana turned people into homicidal maniacs. In the 1970s and 80s British doctors told mothers to put their babies to sleep face-down. Cot deaths soared, until a campaign by one nurse succeeded in changing this policy, which we now know to have claimed something like 15,000 lives. Very few Chinese women smoke and yet they have one of the highest lung cancer rates in the world. Lung cancer rates practically everywhere have been rising since about 1930 and in some cases (e.g. American women) have not peaked yet, despite the fact that smoking rates have gone steadily down. Japan, one of the world’s heaviest-smoking nations, is also in the top two or three in life expectancy. Japanese rates of lung cancer and heart disease have nevertheless been rising for the last 3 decades - at the same time as their smoking rate has gone down. But then again, when have this wonderful government ever let the truth get in the way of fleecing the electorate. Ireland and Scotland have had a huge hit on pubs closing, Ireland has lost 1400 pubs in the last 3 years, lots of jobs. Scotland's thriving Bingo clubs have been decimated, pub closures are happening everywhere. I look forward to the only pub chain to survive being Weather spoons and their plastic decor, stinking pubs with no atmosphere. Beer will be the next crusade, bad for you so tax it, then fatty food who knows where it will end. may be any car that does less than 30 mpg will be banned............................................ Will the last one to leave the UK turn off the light, right im off for a cigar to relax Any one wanting to know the truth. click here http://freedom2choose.co.uk/index.php |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pistonbroke on Jul 1st, 2007, 10:19pm Well said that man ;) They never let the "facts" get in the way of what they want to do... "facts" are usually debatable/open to interpretation for normal people. It's a good job the great and the good know better then. Don't get me going on drug companies ;D Still, at least all the extra taxes we'll pay for global warming will be well spent then ??? Dave (who won't need to turn the lights out because he won't be the last to leave ;)) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by jonnycab on Jul 2nd, 2007, 12:48am Nic....nice post & although I don't really know if everything you have stated is fact, it's a pretty good arguement for the "where's the real proof that smoking kills" ;) It's a fact that alcohol is a bigger killer than tobacco. There are more complaints, diseases & deaths due to alcohol than there are for tobacco. Smoking has never been proved to actually cause any illnesses, but rather increase the chance of suffering from a certain illness, mainly cancer. Everybody has cancer cells in their body, inside & out (moles), & it can be triggered by anything...ie...smoking, exposure to sunlight etc..... even severe shock. Alcohol, on the other hand, is proven to actually cause damage to the body & be a direct cause of organ disease etc.... rather than increase the chances of triggering a heriditary or dormant nasty in your body ??? So why not ban alcohol as well ? Reason being...the person next to you doesn't have to breath it in....but the person next to you may still suffer the consequences when you decide, after 8 pints, to smash his face in ::) I would say that alcohol abuse is a bigger problem than nicotine addiction, socialy, physically & mentally.....just go to casualty on a Friday/Saturday night....it ain't filled with smokers who have smoked too much ;) I think that the world has a bigger problem with alcohol than it does tobacco :) I'm a smoker, but a very picky smoker. I don't smoke filtered cigarettes. The tobacco is stale & the filters (as far as I know) contain just as many toxins as the tobacco....& they burn the back of my throat ??? A nice bit of fresh, moist tobacco out of the Golden Virginia pouch, as far as I'm concerened, is just what the doctor ordered ;D The new smoking laws don't really affect me to be honest. I've never let anyone smoke in my taxi & I don't smoke in it myself....but I might have one on the way home after a long, late night (window open of course). But now I can't even do this....the law states that a licenced hackney carriage vehicle "must be smoke free at all times, even when not being used for hire"....& the smoking police are looking out for you ::) I think this whole no smoking thing should have been thought out more carefully by the government & as was mentioned before....pub landlords should be given the option to have smoking or non-smoking. I'm off to do now what the native American Indians used to do of an evening.....smoke, relax & go to bed :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 2nd, 2007, 7:04am I follow your ideals Nic, but the one thing I don't agree with you on is this. If I go to any public place of entertainment with my wife, we prefer to come home with our clothing not stinking of smoke, and my Wife and I don't want to have been breathing other people's second hand smoke either. That's where smokers and non-smokers don't agree. We are human beings. We breathe AIR. :D Nobody is ever going to tell us that THIS sort of thing (below) on a table will ever attract us to a restaurant or pub, or bring me back as a customer. EVER. Because it won't. It's filthy to a non-smoker. So trade will not suffer, it will improve, despite what smokers say. http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g25/xtr42gpnd/ashtray.jpg That to me is where we non-smokers are now protected. :D :D It doesn't stop you smoking. ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 2nd, 2007, 12:44pm Well, there are a lot of interesting points of view and interesting info arising from this. I didn't really expect my late night(early hours!) little gripe to evoke ANY response-let alone provoke such debate. It again underlines what a great site this is :) P.S. I would make one point. Although this must be the nanniest administration ever, don't imagine it would have been any different with any of the others. As far as I am aware they all went along with it(as long as it excepted the House of Commons of course - don't do as we do, do as we say). |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by DazRSK on Jul 2nd, 2007, 3:12pm A lot of good points have been made from either side here. I used to be a smoker of cigars - probably only a few a week and hardly what you would call addicted to them, but nevertheless, I still found it relaxing to have a pint and cigar every so often. Never been addicted to fags - and from the addiction point of view, I am pleased at that. I was at a indoor rock gig once - forget now who I was watching - and lit up a cigar. The guy behind me just pleasantly requested that I stubb it out as it was making his eyes water. From a non smokers point of view, what I was doing was a bit gormless, I guess. I haven't picked up a cigar in 7 years - just sort of gave them up. Wasn't smoking them frequently enough for it to really concern me. I think the point is that there are very few non-smokers who believe that everybody should be non smokers and if anyone did, it would be an extreme uphill battle. After all, what gives non smokers the right to inflict their view across society. I do agree with this new law because what I do object to though - as has been said - is breathing in other people's smoke, just like that guy at the gig "complaining" to me. I realised my error and was considerate. Unfortunately, as I have got older and tended to mix with more and more people who don't smoke, I seem to be able to smell it more on my clothes now after a night out. The following day, if it really was like a bonfire in the pub the night before, my throat is sore and nose aches. Just don't feel 100%. Is it fair that smoke is inflicted on me in that way so that I feel groggy the next day ? I could go somewhere else, of course - like another pub. But why should I ? And if anybody says that 2nd hand smoke is not the harmful substance that it is made out to be, then why do I feel rough afterwards. Look - I think we are all kidding ourselves if we stated that fresh air with a dose of smoke 7 times a week is the recipe for well living and long life until 110. Our bodies don't really function on smoke that well. Now I do have the issue with the alcohol vs smoke. I have never hit anyone because I'm drunk - no matter how many I have had - and nor do I recollect any of my mates. We have been sprung by a group of lads once wanting punch up on a Saturday night but that was quickly passified. I am not that naiive to fail to recognise what is happening in our towns and cities with the binge drinking, but there are laws and police to mop that sort of crime up - albeit at a costly measure. I agree that less drink leads to less crime leads to less taxpayer & other expenses. But violence is not a 100% pre-requisite after drinking in everybody. When in the pub and there are 2 groups of people next to me - one group is smoking and one group drinking heavily. I think it is a small possibility that the group drinking are going to inflict their excesses on me. They may want to take us outside and beat us up, but the % chance of this is small. There is a 100% chance that I will suffer from the smoking group in one way or another. That's enough from me. ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by petehull on Jul 2nd, 2007, 3:44pm Quote:
[] On the whole... ;D Was it Smokey Robinson by any chance ;D ;D Some good point made there.... pete |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by tintin on Jul 2nd, 2007, 6:11pm my 10p worth ive been a smoker 15 years. i welcomed the ban in scotland in public places, i didnt smoke when in a restaurant or in the car with people in it. in my flat, only the living room is a smoking area. i understand the risks (it can kill, along with sunburn, alcohol, too much salt & fat in food, used engine oil, the list is endless.....), and would not encourage anyone to start. everone keeps saying i am inflicting "my" smoke on "you" in the pub, like they have no choice but to be in the pub...... free-will works both ways. my personal view is that some pubs should be smoking, some not, then everyone wins. at least, provide useful shelter where applicable (no shelter provided at work ! why do they think not providing shelter will discourage us, all it does is make us narky) im a pretty easy going person, but i have seen the worst of human traits from "smug" non-smokers, glibly telling me i should give up, and glorying in their "superiority". its not an attractive quality and clearly does not inspire me to give up, so its only to make themselves feel better. for a healthy, pleasant, law-abiding person, i really do feel persecuted, not by the government (who i back, for once ;D), but by "anti-smokers". i guess everyone sees it only from their side, and rarely put themselves in the other persons shoes.... moan over ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by sector-9 on Jul 2nd, 2007, 6:11pm I'm not a smoker and never have been - in fact losing my gran to lung cancer when I was young was enough to put me off for life. Despite that though, I think the smokers have a raw deal of it with this law. It seems to go much too far, almost to the point of smoking hysteria, after all, if I wanted to smoke in my taxi after I've finished my shift then why shouldn't I? Of course, somebody might complain they didn't like the smell of smoke next morning when I picked them up, but that's just tough, same as if they didn't like the colour seats or my choice of radio station - they pay to get taken from A to B, they don't own the bloody car for duration of the journey! Ditto for smoking in pubs and clubs -motorway service stations have had smoking/non-smoking areas for ages and that worked. >:( Darren |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 2nd, 2007, 7:23pm [] Yet again, some great points made by both sides. As a fairly tolerant ex-heavy smoker, I suppose that puts me in a good position to see it from both sides. I do agree that no-one in an enclosed public place should be left with little alternative but to be in close proximity to smokers. However, talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut - albeit a large one. Take the open air restrictions - people not allowed to smoke even OUTSIDE certain buildings. One of our local outdoor tourist attractions has smoking banned(whether by choice or otherwise I don't know) in the park. Smokers must go to the car park to light up - 20 yards away! Further if the wind is in the wrong direction? }{ As for private clubs etc., what on earth was wrong with letting them decide and advertising themselves as either smoking or non smoking. Punters can then decide whether or not to go in and staff can decide whether or not to work there. Darren, I agree with your sentiments but I know what 'er indoors' car smells like to a non-smoker. It's a different matter when your livelihood depends on putting bums on(car) seats! ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 2nd, 2007, 7:29pm Sorry folks, have just read it again. What I meant was that the car park was ONLY 20 yards away from the banned area. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Baz on Jul 2nd, 2007, 8:14pm I would love to know however how you can have pubs for smokers and ones for non smokers.... what about villages with only one pub? should a new one be created for the non smokers? This whole thing is being done by the government supposedly to provide a better life for us all. Wether we agree is a different matter. What I can't believe though is the number of bloomin smokers who will harp on about this law but how few people will say anything when we have the Labour Government giving up all our rights to a bunch of idiots in Brussels which will only breed more dumb laws like we have now! |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 2nd, 2007, 9:13pm Good point Baz about pubs which are possibly a different matter to private clubs- especially pubs serving food. However, with a rather reduced anti-smoker hysteria and a more balanced will, I am fairly sure a compromise could have been reached. For example:-I know it would not be possible in every case, but where feasible, a separate fan-extracted room for smokers. Smoke room?- I'm sure I've heard that expression somewhere before.... |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Kjetil S on Jul 2nd, 2007, 9:22pm The problem with separate rooms is this: Say you are going out with three other friends, two of them smokers. Those two will ofcourse use the smokers area. You then have the choice of coming home stinking of sigarettes, or you can abandon two of your friends. Most will choose the first, even though they would prefer to stay with their friends without feeling the smell of the cigarettes. Another problem is: Who's going to clean the smokers area? You can't force the staff to enter the room. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by nic on Jul 2nd, 2007, 9:41pm on 07/02/07 at 07:04:17, Spannerdemon wrote:
Ok spanner, 1st point, 2nd hand smoke, let me point out a few points. No one has died or became ill from 2nd hand smoke, FACT. The UK government says that 100,000 or 120,000 deaths per year (depending on who is speaking at the time) are caused by ‘smoking-related disease’. The impression given is that these are all deaths specifically, and provably, caused by smoking, but it is no such thing. It includes nonsmokers who die of bronchitis or strokes, and smokers who die of heart attacks in their 80s. It includes people who quit smoking decades before. It is not exactly lying, but it is deliberately misleading, it is fearmongering, and in my opinion these people should be ashamed of themselves. ‘Smoking Kills’ is a meaningless statement, since you cannot prove that smoking is the specific and unique cause of anyone’s death, and the vast majority of even heavy long-term smokers live to normal old age - as we can see from our own experience if only we stop allowing ourselves to be mesmerised by statistics. Environmental Tobacco Smoke or ETS (Passive Smoke) is the best weapon of the Anti Smoking establishment. the largest study to date on ETS exposure was published by the US National Center for Environmental Health, which studied 10,000 exposed nonsmokers for levels of cotinine (a nicotine derivative thought to demonstrate the level of tobacco smoke exposure). The mean cotinine level of the nonsmokers was found to be 1/500th of that of the active smoker. And by the way: (a) there are other sources of cotinine, including vegetables, and (b) showing that people have small amounts of cotinine in their blood is not the same as demonstrating that it’s doing them any harm. Proving anything at all about ETS is like trying to thread a needle with a sledgehammer. For instance, 28 studies to date have shown more evidence of risk reduction than elevation. So you could, if it were politically expedient to do so, construct an argument that ETS is good for you. It’s not impossible that a few very unlucky people, exposed to a lot of smoke, may become ill or even die. But such a possibility exists in every interaction between humans and any kind of substance. What people need to understand is that if you want to prove something badly enough, and you do enough studies, and juggle the numbers enough, you can ‘prove’ just about anything. But to claim that ETS is a grave threat to public health is dishonest fearmongering on an outrageous scale. So why is it happening? Anyone who really studies the evidence must come to one inevitable conclusion: that the intention is not to protect the public from a threat, but to stigmatise smokers and make smoking ‘socially unacceptable’. You’d think antismokers would be glad that ‘passive’ smoke, at least, isn’t hurting anyone. On the contrary: to admit as much would be to surrender their most effective weapon. The smell of fish makes me physically sick, guess what, I don't go near shops that smell fish. If we are talking about not liking the smell, I have a fan in my kitchen, not very expensive fan at that. It has charcoal filters and removes the smell from my cooking, easy, put one in every smoking area and extract the smell of smoke. I Ireland people are complaining about the smell of years of split beer in the carpet and the other customers BO, odd that. I am a considerate smoker but I remember being in one family pub chain having a meal with Sue. I was in the adult only non smoking area and this scroat and her filthy brood came in and she let them run amok and generally ruin my meal. Then I lit a cigar up after my meal in the smoking area and was asked to put it out as her kids didn't like the smell, i refused, pointing out her kids and her had the rest of the pub and I was in the correct area. The manager arrived and asked me to put my cigar out, I let, didn't pay the bill and guess what, I havent gone back because I don't have kids and cannot stand anyone else's. Easy I have the freedom to chose, thats is all I ask. Anyone going to the pub this summer, the part is in the beer garden, I will be there. When the weather is cracking are the smoking gestapo going to sit in the beer garden and ask me to put my smoke out................................ What next, banning pork scratching in case any one gets hayfever of the dust in the bottom of the packet |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 3rd, 2007, 12:37am Absolutely Nic. The bit about kids opens another can of worms. If misbehaving kids cause you a problem and you go to the parents, what happens? They take up the cudgels because you have dared to criticise their cretins and at best berate you or at worst threaten or assault you(not me personally you understand, but then I am 6'2" and 16st). But you get my drift. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by mr._floppy on Jul 3rd, 2007, 1:15am nic, why can't you bring yourself to admit that smoking increases your chances of an early death, an increase in the chances of heart disease, strokes and poor circulation, or of mouth, tongue or throat cancer ? Why bring up this huge spurious Government conspiratorial edifice of disinformation ? ( smokers tend to be a bit Bette Davis and overdramatic ) :-* Smoking is bad for your health and non smokers ( the majority ) are entitled to be protected from your filthy and anti-social habit ? Yes or No |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 3rd, 2007, 8:54am Quote:
Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not a scientist, but that wasn't the issue. Personally I think it DOES damage other people's health, and I am married to a nurse, who has seen more deaths than most of us will, fortunately, see in a month of Sundays, so we know where we're coming from. Smoking DOES shorten your life, so ten to one, it's doing the same to others, and if you don't agree to that, then fine, but I reckon you've been living on another planet for the past few decades. You can fool yourself all you like, but I agree with Mr Floppy.....You aint kidding me. ;) The issue is that the smoke gets into MY clothing. It gets into my Wife's clothing and into her hair, and you smokers ensure that we are going to breathe it in, whether we like it or not. That's not on. I'm sure you'd soon kick up a fuss if my wife arrived for duty in a hospital where you were a patient and she stank of your last night's old smoke.......point made I think. As it happens, she doesn't smoke or drink. Same as me. We don't need these drugs to prop up our lives. Smoking stinks. We don't want any part of it. :( It means dry-cleaning bills, extra laundry and us not returning to places that allowed it. Bad for their trade. bad for my pocket, and bad for our health. Face it it's fine for you guys to puff away, but it's not nice for US to have to have your habit inflicted on us. We now have protection from it, which, whether you like it or accept it, or not as the case may be, is gaining Worldwide support. If you HAVE to fly on an aeroplane for 6 hours for your holiday without a cigarette, then why is it such a problem to extend that courtesy to your fellow human beings on the ground ? I can't see the problem myself. ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by jonnycab on Jul 3rd, 2007, 10:09am I seem to remember the most high profile case of anyone being affected by passive smoking was when Roy Castle put his lung cancer down to passive smoking after playing all those working mens clubs when he was young. But that was in the days before extractor fans/air conditioning & pubs & clubs really were smoke filled dens, especially in winter when all the windows were shut. I don't go to pubs much anymore (seem to be working most nights & can't afford the prices anymore), but I was a regular pub user up until about 10 years ago & even being a smoker, I didn't like the foggy atmosphere that some pubs seemed to have. I have never like smoking in enclosed areas, because once I've had my roll-up, then I don't want to carry on breathing it in indefinately. That's why I only smoke in the back garden when at home, even in the winter, because I don't like to inflict it on my wife & child, & as I mentioned before, I don't smoke in my taxi unless I'm going home or have an empty car coming back from an airport etc. Even then the windows are open so that smoke will not infect the inside of the vehicle. Also having 'Neutradol' air fresheners in my car ensures that it always smells fresh & some people have commented that they like getting in my taxi as it smells so nice :) But the new laws prevent me from smoking at all, not just in the car, but from what I understand, I have to be at least 21 feet from it ??? This seems slightly bonkers to me. I know that for business premises there is a 21 feet minimum distance for smokers, but standing outside a vehicle having a cigarette should not constitute as smoking in the workplace, especially if all the windows are shut. Do you know what the most crazy thing about this is ?....it is that a member of the public can quite legally stand on the pavement next to my taxi & have a cigarette & not risk getting fined, but I can get fined for doing exactly the same thing ??? Is it a case of an employee of a shop having to go 21 feet from the premises to have a smoke, but a non-employee can walk past the shop, literally feet away from the front door & be smoking ? As I said, I'm not entirely sure if this is the case, but if it is, then there is a serious flaw in these new smoking laws that needs to be re-considered :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by jonnycab on Jul 3rd, 2007, 12:44pm Just been reading about some lap dance club owner in London who is refusing to ban smoking in his club & has hired a top human rights lawer to fight his case against the government. Who is the lawyer he has hired ?...yep you guessed it....Cherie Blair ::) http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=45889 |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by DazRSK on Jul 3rd, 2007, 2:19pm on 07/02/07 at 21:41:02, nic wrote:
I have become ill after sitting in a smokey pub after a Saturday night - and I wasn't even drinking. I know I was ill - my nose was running and my throat was sore the next day. ;D ;) In seriousness - tbh, I think facts can be distorted in either direction. Yes - there is this warpath at the moment of anything that is considered "dirty" or a bad habit needs to be stamped out and I would agree that the gov't have taken a heavy line here. The facts are played upon to stoke up their case. They are trying to aspire to a "cleaner" world without litter strewn across the place, no leaded fuel, cat converters, teenagers rolling around in the towns drunk as skunks, all sorts of mess, which was not how it was - for better, for worse - in more liberal Britain 30 or 40 yrs ago. But to state that nobody has become seriously ill or died from 2nd hand smoke - NOBODY - is a bit ridiculous. I would suggest that actual answer is somewhere between this point and the gov't claims. I don't like gov't statistics anyway - so I wouldn't even bother placing them into the argument. All I know is how I feel after a night next to a group of smokers. In some places I have been to where the smoke has been exceptionally bad, it was good job I could hear my mates. I sure as hell couldn't see them - and there was a spotlight over us. :) I don't know what the answer is. I think 2 rooms in a pub would - as 1 chap has said - make it difficult to socialise. It would either become an us and them or if there was 1 smoker was in a group of friends, everybody in the group would feel compelled to sitting in the "dark" room. Then there won't be enough chairs/tables in the "dark" room because everybody probably still goes out with at least 1 smoker in the group of mates. So you might as well make the whole pub the smoking room and then where are we at ? There are issues with the law and that has been drawn out here - I just think that in pubs and clubs, smoke is very intrusive for those who do not like it. So there is a choice - those people just get out or impose a restriction. I would echo again - I don't care what the facts state. Me personally - my lungs do not function well on smoke and prefer fresh air. And that's not because I am ill or have an illness - I just know from the number of times I have set a bonfire going with the wind in the wrong direction. ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by bertie on Jul 3rd, 2007, 2:53pm so much for the smoking ban in Scotland !!! 2 Muslems were caught smoking in the doorway of Glasgow airport ! |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 3rd, 2007, 2:59pm I always said that MY way of dealing with criminals and politicians was to tie them to trees and set fire to them, but for them to set fire to themselves........................Priceless!! }{ }{ }{ }{ The idea is obviously getting through. ;D Put ME in charge of cime in the UK and we'll soon have it sorted ;D Chuck another hoodie on the barbie Bruce........ }{ }{ |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 3rd, 2007, 3:54pm Bertie - that is terrible! }{ }{ Wait till the powers-that-be spot that one {} Some great input again chaps but SD:- re the remark "we don't need these drugs to prop up our lives". Some of us go out for a drink because we enjoy a pint, not because we need it or to get drunk. There are things I would choose not to do, like battle re-enactments or Morris dancing, but providing it does not interfere with anyone else, I would defend to the hilt others' right to do it. That said, love your sense of humour mate and admire the amount of advice you give. :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 3rd, 2007, 9:56pm Quote:
No offence intended Pat. It's just that my wife being a nurse has seen the end results of let's call it 'partaking' in these substances in A & E departments...........It aint pretty sometimes, and we have both opted out as a result. Cancer and alcoholism are killers. Morris dancing..........no I don't think so either ;D ;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 4th, 2007, 12:16am Hi SD. No offence taken. Abuse of anything is a no-no. It's just that some of us have higher tolerance levels without any effect and as I said before, as long as our lifestyle does not impinge on anyone else then to me that's ok, whether it's smoking, drinking , behaviour abroad(God knows what the Spaniards imagine the average Brit is like) :-[ |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by dogma on Jul 5th, 2007, 1:35am I think the smoking ban is a good idea but feel that the smokers could atleast be given there own areas. The problem it has created now where i live is that the pubs are a nightmare to walk past. the front are full of drunks that now like to throw abuse at passers by or things at cars as they now have to stand in the street. As one problem is solved another is created regards dogma |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 5th, 2007, 6:39am Quote:
No...they don't HAVE to. They CHOOSE to do that. Surely (like on an aircraft), they can do without a smoke for the few hours that they are at the club? We saw a guy outside the local Conservative Club when I dropped my mate off after work the other evening. All posh in his whistle and shiny shoes........in the pouring rain. ::) He really looked an absolute Richard head. ;) If I hadn't been on my way to collect my take away, I'd have stopped and set fire to him too. ;D ;D At least it would have dried the poor sod up. }{ }{ |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by petehull on Jul 5th, 2007, 7:00am Hi all ;D It says in my guide book regarding shelters and smoking areas etc, "There is no requirement for managers to provide smoking shelters, if you decide to build a shelter we suggest you discuss any plans you may have with your local council as there may be a range of issues you need to consider, including planning permission, licencing, building control, noise and litter." Also smokers are no longer allowed to go off for smoke breaks as has been the practice in the past. Our kitchens used to say that if they wanted to smoke in the 15 minute break time they were allotted then they had to get changed out of their working clothes, go outside the perimiter fence, have their smoke, then get changed and wash hands, change back into work clothes before commencing work again. This obviously prooved impossible in the time they had. And that was before the new laws came into force. To think I was once controlled by the smoking habbit, talk about slavery ??? ??? Pete |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 5th, 2007, 8:19am That's similar to hygiene laws Pete. I used to work in commercial butchery, and if you wanted to go to leave the plant (for the toilet say), you had to clock out, change out of your chainmail gloves, apron, hard hat, one piece overall, and white rubber boots, put on your own clothes, and then go. Then, wash your hands, and change back, and clock in again. This 'TIME' was deducted from wages as a deterrent against people spending too much time away from the shop floor. Dark age employment, but it is still the way it works, as I have a couple of friends who still work there. :D |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 5th, 2007, 1:51pm Commercial butchery eh SD? Bit like the campaign against the smokers really. But seriously, can I quote from today's Mansfield and Ashfield Recorder(I'd reproduce the article if I knew how to do it). "HOSPITAL SMOKERS WILL BE TACKLED." "Security guards, car park attendants and senior staff will tackle smokers who refuse to stub it out at Notts hospitals." In the meantime, who is doing their jobs? (ex-smokers need not apply) Planting a bomb sir? Can't deal with you at the moment, I have this smoker to admonish. {} "A previous ban on lighting up...was extended to the entire site including.... vehicles. The local Morrison's is at the corner of the campus, sharing the same access road so presumably, you can't light up in your vehicle in their car park either. It goes on with the usual official speak and ends:-"..A rota of directors will be 'policing' the ban." Don't anyone be too quick to cheer from the rafters. Make no mistake, anyone who drinks will be next . You can bet your life you already figure in the politicians' discussions. How long before anyone who smokes or drinks will be refused treatment in the NHS? Then it will be anyone who indulges in any activity which is deemed dangerous - sky diving, playing dominoes, tiddleywinks.... Don't laugh-remember 1984? (Orwell, not the year). I don't do anything illegal so had no problem with speed cameras, CCTV and the like. Now I'm beginning to wonder :-/ |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by nic on Jul 5th, 2007, 6:17pm on 07/05/07 at 06:39:20, Spannerdemon wrote:
Kind of makes my point about people on this subject, wont, dont look at the topic, just their own opinion. As a nurse she will be able to tell you, if you bothered to ask, NO ONE IN THE WORLD HAS SMOKING AS A CAUSE OF DEATH................. Why, because it cannot be proven one way or another. You mention how funny it is, well ask yourself this, if the DRUG I NEED, your words or was it prop my life up with, why does the leading manufacturer of these nicotine replacement products support the anti-smoking police ASH. I love to smoke, i smoke and collect cigars from the 4 corners of the world, plus I enjoy a drink, or was it drugs you said. You continue with your holier than thou attitude and enjoy driving your Toyota prius at 25 mph, as this is where we will be in 10 years time doe to the nanny state we live in. I used to think this site was a balanced community, but hey you live and learn don't you, i have. I am off to enjoy a couple of large rums, smoke a couple of cigars, beat a few children and generally behave live the anti social moron I must be, using such drugs.............. Goodnight and good bye |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by DazRSK on Jul 5th, 2007, 7:05pm on 07/05/07 at 01:35:33, dogma wrote:
Yes - but the only issue with this, as I stated in a previous post, is how would you split the pub up ? How many chairs and tables would you allocate to the smokers room and how many to the non smokers room ? I know this may seem a stupid way of putting it - but say 5 of you go out for a beer and 1 of you is a smoker. So would you send him/her into the room while you continue the conversation or would you continue the chat in the smokers room ? It's hardly like a carsey break - once the fag is lit, they're out there for 5 minutes or more. If you didn't go with them, they might not even come back since there is something in common out there. ;D But seriously, how many more groups will do the same - the smokers area will need to be bigger than the non smokers ? Then does the whole pub really need to become the smokers room ? And the real issue - once you have a group of drunks that, during their earlier sober phase, were happily wandering off to the smokers room for their fag - suddenly do they become apathetic to the whole thing and just start smoking in the centre of the pub anyway. I think the law has gone overboard on some areas as pointed out in hospital grounds or whatever, but it is better to be clear cut when pubs are concerned due to drunk customers stepping over the line. I know this - I served behind a bar once. Dealing with the public can be a nuisance. Dealing with drunk public can be a disaster. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by Spannerdemon on Jul 5th, 2007, 7:42pm I'm not even going to respond to your post Nic. To even suggest that smoking doesn't kill is ludicrous. I'm off the subject now. It's boring. ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by petehull on Jul 5th, 2007, 8:36pm [] With spannerdeamon, the topic now tires me, best of health to you.. Pete |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 5th, 2007, 9:10pm Yeah, whatever's said isn't going to change anything. It has been a lively and interesting debate though. Same as I said before though - watch your back, you could be next! ;) In my 35 years of govt service in Health and Social Security, I have seen more manipulation of figures and selective interpretation of statistics than most people have had hot dinners:- "There are lies, d**ned lies, and statistics". |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 6th, 2007, 12:19am Hi folks . My last posting was going to be my last on this subject. However, I live in a small village. Have been out tonight to my local Welfare which until now has been the evening focal point of the village. It was empty. How many people were missing who are normally in on a Thursday night? A/ roughly 20-30. How many people were in who wren't in prior to THE BAN? A/ 0 So well done anti-smokers. You have helped the govt destroy the night life of at least one community. If this continues, the club will close. So much for not coming in due to the smokey atmosphere. Sleep easily in your beds. But then you will won't you? You have probably been there since 9.00 pm 2nd opinion? Same thing at the club where my wife is the dance instructor so that is her interest and livelihood likely to be out of the window. We are both pensioners so we don't have a lot left in life. Or ask for it. Nice one all concerned. :-* |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by dogma on Jul 6th, 2007, 1:11am Id have to agree with you pat, although i can see both sides of the storey. My friend sold his house when he retired to but a pub in scotland, as we all know the smoking ban hit them a long time ago. The pub is now gone along with his home. This debate will bring a lot of pros and cons but for every pro there will be a con. This country is mad on human rights, so where are the human rights for those that want to smoke, but then there will be the ones who argu there rights are to sit in a smoke free enviroment. Many pubs where i live had a smokers and non smokers area which worked well, why did it have to change ? |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by pat on Jul 6th, 2007, 1:16am My point exactly mate-and I'm not a smoker. Sadly, though, voices of reason are not welcome. |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by jonnycab on Jul 6th, 2007, 3:31am Okay, so we've now finally fallen into line with the rest of the EU & banned smoking in public places. I take your point Pat about your local community centre & it's a shame that small communities like yours are going to suffer in this way. But the times are-a-changing & us smokers are going to have to either adapt or give up, because this new law is here to stay & I doubt the governments of the future will ever scrap it :) This Soho lap dance club owner who has hired Cherie Blair to represent him in the court of human rights to fight for the right to have smoking in his private, members only (no pun intended) club may win & maybe they may change the law to exclude members only clubs....who knows. If he should win, then this will probably mean that the new smoking laws as far as socialising is concerned, may be un-enforcible in some areas. Village community centres could start to charge a membership fee (alot already do) & so avoid the smoking ban ;) I suppose time will tell what long term affects this new law will have & how it affects the licensed trade :) . . . . You can't ban tobacco sales, but you can restrict the trade outlets. Not sure about other EU members but in Spain they've gone a step further than we have. You can't buy tobacco at supermarkets & garages etc anymore...you have to go to a licensed tobacconist.... When I was over there last year, I queued for about 10 minutes to buy some tobacco. But when I got to the front it was still cheap (quarter of the price as here), so bought enough to last a few weeks. It seems the Spanish government are trying to discourage smoking, but have considered the right of the smoker to smoke themselves to death rather than be taxed to death ;) P.S.....Think I'm finished with this topic now, as well :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Smoking ban Post by bertie on Jul 6th, 2007, 3:39pm On a lighter note, when the holiday gang ( 16 of us) were on holiday in Zante, we went to see a live band, Strings, and Nic was on the front row, (alone I might add) puffing on the fattest cigar you have ever seen, when the lead singer stopped the song, and asked Nic if he was smoking tear gas !!!! ;D ;D ;D much to our entertainment. In fact the exact words were if I remember right were, F*** me is that tear gas you are smoking ???? ha ha simon |
||
|
Ford Scorpio Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |