Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[snakey1]

Yes it is a joke when people are not prepared to see that a substance which is causing death and mayhem is looked upon as acceptable, whilst another which cause bad breath is banned.

I think smoking causes slightly more than bad breath ken and tobacco isn't banned you just can't smoke in enclosed public spaces anymore, the government is unlikely to completely ban smoking or drinking because all that will do is lose them a lot of tax and push the supply into the hands of the criminals (look what happen during prohibition) and unlike tobacco alcohol in moderation is actually good for your health according to medical studies ( i can't be a*sed to list them if you want to find them do a search on the net) where as you'll be hard pushed to find any medical studies that say smoking is good for you. As a smoker i enjoy drinking more in a smoke free pub than i used to in the old smokey clubs and i have no problem nipping outside for a cigar now and again. Yes i believe the ban could have been handled better with smoking/non-smoking pubs/clubs but it wasn't and the government is going to back track now so you may as well get used to it.

[Wordbender]

1. Your assuming they don't want to smoke just because you do not think it is correct

 

2. I notice you do not comment on booze perhaps because you would miss going down your local for a pint if banned.

 

3. And booze is a big killer, youngsters under the influence often go for their first trip on hard drugs, motorist, I could go on for ever and there is NO argument because the evidence is there for all to see.

 

4.Yes it is a joke when people are not prepared to see that a substance which is causing death and mayhem is looked upon as acceptable, whilst another which cause bad breath is banned.

 

What a load of nonsense, Ken.

 

1. I'm assuming nothing of the sort. As I have stated previously in this thread, I have conducted my own research on this one by speaking to hundreds of smokers over the years. An overwhelming majority of them declared a wish to be rid of smoking. Do you really find this hard to believe, Ken, or are you just being obtuse?

 

2. I've 'commented on booze' throughout this thread, actually.

 

3. What YOU keep bringing up is the illegal abuse of alcohol and trying to equate that to responsible consumption that harms nobody. Your comparison is nonsense - but I think you know that already.

 

4. Now you're just being absurd. Sadly, I know better than most what smoking really 'causes', and frankly Ken, your comment is beneath contempt. That you now sink to such ludicrous statements shows you've lost the argument.

[nick]

Taken from this site :

 

The link doesn't appear to work, the url is:

http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/smoking-ban-$366643.htm

 

Although smoking is known to cause lung cancer, the effect of passive smoking has proved harder to quantify. A 2002 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer suggested that regular exposure to passive smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 to 30 per cent. According to the British Medical Association, it increases the risk of heart disease by between 25 and 35 per cent and doubles the risk of a stroke.

 

So 20 to 30% increased risk of lung cancer

25 to 30 % increased risk of heart disease

doubled risk of stroke

 

These are the increased risk to NON SMOKERS

 

What gives anyone the right to impose that burden on a fellow human being.

 

Smoking is not banned.

 

Alcohol causes problems to the drinker. Only if the drinker CHOOSES to cause problems to the rest of society does a problem occur.

 

I am afraid that the arguments being put forward by the pro smoking lobby on here are getting more and more desperate and ludicrous.

 

The UK parliament after a free vote - yes a free vote, not a three line whip! - decided by a majority of over 200 to impose a ban in all public enclosed spaces. They did so for health reasons. The argument that there should be a choice for each pub etc is nonsense.

 

No-one has the right to expose other human beings to an increased risk of disease for their own perverted pleasure, with no benefit to society. Yes it is true that vehicle emissions are bad for us. As has been said that is being addressed, too slowly, but is being addressed. Two wrongs never make a right, and the argument that is put forward that because vehicle emissions are bad for our health means that smoking should be allowed in public buildings is utter nonsense.

 

Now could one of the smoking lobby possibly answer me a very simple question.

 

Why should any smoker have the right to increase the risk of serious diseases to a non-smoking by-stander?

Edited January 21, 2008 by nick

[mr motorola]

Taken from http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/smo...#036;366643.htm :

So 20 to 30% increased risk of lung cancer

25 to 30 % increased risk of heart disease

doubled risk of stroke

 

These are the increased risk to NON SMOKERS

 

What gives anyone the right to impose that burden on a fellow human being.

 

Smoking is not banned.

 

Alcohol causes problems to the drinker. Only if the drinker CHOOSES to cause problems to the rest of society does a problem occur.

 

I am afraid that the arguments being put forward by the pro smoking lobby on here are getting more and more desperate and ludicrous.

 

The UK parliament after a free vote - yes a free vote, not a three line whip! - decided by a majority of over 200 to impose a ban in all public enclosed spaces. They did so for health reasons. The argument that there should be a choice for each pub etc is nonsense.

 

No-one has the right to expose other human beings to an increased risk of disease for their own perverted pleasure, with no benefit to society. Yes it is true that vehicle emissions are bad for us. As has been said that is being addressed, too slowly, but is being addressed. Two wrongs never make a right, and the argument that is put forward that because vehicle emissions are bad for our health means that smoking should be allowed in public buildings is utter nonsense.

 

Now could one of the smoking lobby possibly answer me a very simple question.

 

Why should any smoker have the right to increase the risk of serious diseases to a non-smoking by-stander?

As i said last night nick , why not designated smoking pubs?

If smoking is bad for you the same as car emissions are bad for you then why ban one and not the other?

As for your statement about a choice for each pub being nonsense.........well i'm pretty sure that there will be some landlords who will vehemently disagree with you on that point.

Peoples jobs are literally in the balance because of this ban.

[nick]

As i said last night nick , why not designated smoking pubs?

If smoking is bad for you the same as car emissions are bad for you then why ban one and not the other?

As for your statement about a choice for each pub being nonsense.........well i'm pretty sure that there will be some landlords who will vehemently disagree with you on that point.

Peoples jobs are literally in the balance because of this ban.

 

Because that still exposes (or has the potential to expose) non-smokers to second hand smoke. There are many many people that need to enter pubs as part of their everyday job, not the least of which are:

Weights and measures

Public health

Delivery people

Police Officers

Band members

 

the list goes on and on, and that ignores the staff themselves.

 

Car emissions are largely outdoors, and as such dissipate more easily than cigarette smoke which is indoors (it's the same reason why so far smoking is only banned indoors. If you really want to see vehicles banned to stop emissions outdoors then to be fair I think that smoking should be banned outdoors too...

 

And if smoking is allowed then peoples lives are in the balance. People's jobs where in the balance when it was realised how lethal asbestos is. But that industry was, quite rightly, closed down with hardly a murmur of protest.

 

Now any chance of you answering the question I posed?

Edited January 21, 2008 by nick

[starlight]

"i smoke for queen and country!!!" the only reason you lot dont smoke is because your to scared!

[Ken Davison South Wales]

What a load of nonsense, Ken.

 

1. I'm assuming nothing of the sort. As I have stated previously in this thread, I have conducted my own research on this one by speaking to hundreds of smokers over the years. An overwhelming majority of them declared a wish to be rid of smoking. Do you really find this hard to believe, Ken, or are you just being obtuse?

 

2. I've 'commented on booze' throughout this thread, actually.

 

3. What YOU keep bringing up is the illegal abuse of alcohol and trying to equate that to responsible consumption that harms nobody. Your comparison is nonsense - but I think you know that already.

 

4. Now you're just being absurd. Sadly, I know better than most what smoking really 'causes', and frankly Ken, your comment is beneath contempt. That you now sink to such ludicrous statements shows you've lost the argument.

 

I will leave it to others to judge your comments, I think you have spelt out what a god like attitude you take when it comes to smoking, yes you know best.

[Wordbender]

I will leave it to others to judge your comments, I think you have spelt out what a god like attitude you take when it comes to smoking, yes you know best.

 

Alternatively, you could address my points as I did yours.

 

Nothing 'god like', Ken, but nothing as nonsensical as your 'bad breath' statement either. It's not about knowing best, it's about knowing the facts - and not trying to prove a non-existent point via distortion of them.

[Peter Sharpe]

I think the funniest and most desperate argument in favour of smoking was that you would now be able to smell people's sweaty armpits. What that really means is that in a clean pub, smokers might possibly temporarily recover enough of their sense of smell to notice it. I can assure you that I have been able to smell the unwashed for years, as well as the stench from the cigarette smoke. I don't think anybody has even mentioned the most selfish act of all - that of smoking a cigar in a crowded room. Now they really did make me have to leave a bar within seconds.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Peter Sharpe

[mr motorola]

Alternatively, you could address my points as I did yours.

 

Nothing 'god like', Ken, but nothing as nonsensical as your 'bad breath' statement either. It's not about knowing best, it's about knowing the facts - and not trying to prove a non-existent point via distortion of them.

Would the 'facts' pay a landlords upkeep?

 

The 'fact' is.........secondary smoke is not as potent as you quote.

If it were the case then would you agree that the experts from whom you collect your data from would have smoking banned....outright? Yes i hear you say, THEN WHY HASN'T IT HAPPENED????

 

Excuse me ....but what about the non-smokers working in westminister / parliament where smoking IS allowed , where are the moans from these non-smoking people?

 

What about the ungodly fragrances that are emitted from our own ar5es?

I don't like people farting near me (it stinks). I know , it's risible ,but look at what you are actually arguing for.

Methane is a major contributor to the affect of the ozone , if we're not careful with all these silly bans on our convenience and air quality , then it might be only a matter of time before we are banned from farting in a public place.

 

Pandering and lying back , taking all that these d1ckheads in power (along with their num-nut goody goody brigade behind them) keep throwing and imposing on our society and it spells a very bland sterile future for our children.

 

Life without Beer , pubs , smoking , cars , computers and farting to name but a few very nasty things in our society that we could do without ,may be the norm in say 20 years time. Laughable ..........maybe .......and the smoking ban could be the snowflake that becomes the snowball that turns into a unstoppable avalanche.

 

No-one is saying that primary smoking is good or healthy for you. Secondary smoke is something yet to be truely proven.

 

What would be acceptable is getting shut of this nanny state we live in and getting back to a bit of normality.

 

By the way , where are the stampeding non-smokers (pre ban) that couldn't wait to get into a smoke free pub or bingo hall after July 1st? I'm still looking up and down the street while going out for a smoke just making sure that my seat won't get taken by the hoards of non-smokers rushing in to breathe the freshness of alcohol air that an empty pub now has.

 

It was covered pretty much nationwide by the media pre-ban , asking non-smokers of their thoughts and most were over the moon of having a smoke free pub to have a drink in. Well......as for my part of the country............we're still waiting for the rush!

 

Could it be that , as the ban has taken effect , the smokers have thought "stuff that , i'll stay in tonight" , causing a knock on effect with their non-smoking friends??? Hhhmmm , the mind boggles.

 

What was seen as ,at the time , a reasonable idea has now backfired by the government. And with an upcoming budget not tooooo far away , maybe mr brown may have to turn turtle on mr blairs idea on the ban.

 

the government has set the ban and there's no going back

Time , as always , will tell.

Edited January 22, 2008 by mr motorola