Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[Ken Davison South Wales]

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.

 

Your 100% correct Mr. M. figures and facts grossly distorted to suit the non-smoking tyrants.

 

It never ceases to amaze me and yes put my back up when people make such unqualified statements such as and I quote :

 

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?

 

What level of qualification do you have for such and all mighty statement ?

 

It is common knowledge that a lot of smokers will admit "Yes it is bad for my health but I enjoy a smoke"

 

The same can be said of alcohol, based of figures produced by qualified people the safe level of alcohol consumption has been greatly reduced. But people who like a glass to much of wine per day will still drink it because they enjoy it.

 

My alcohol statement is very simple to follow:

 

Three pints will not make an average drinker out of control, however it has been proved again by qualified people that put that person behind the wheel of a vehicle and you have a major risk not only to the individual but also anyone else that driver is likely to meet. So three pints would not in drinkers terms be described as abuse until that person does something unlawful which normally relates to someone else other than the imbiber.

 

I could go to highlight lots of other situations relating to alcohol but it is pointless because you are to blind to accept the facts when presented.

 

I am not stating that smoking is good for anyone and yes it can kill, but when you study heart problems like I have had the misfortune to do recently you soon find out that they relate to just as many non-smokers as they do to smokers.

 

The point I am trying to put across is non-smokers are fully prepared to put smoking down but at the same time let many other far more injurious situations pass them by simply because they consider they have no direct effect on them.

 

Selfish is the word that springs to mind.

 

That is not meant to be rude as it is now days almost a religion.

 

PS My bad breath comments are there to break up the melodious drivel being spewed out

Edited January 22, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[Wordbender]

1.What level of qualification do you have for such and all mighty statement ?

 

2. It is common knowledge that a lot of smokers will admit "Yes it is bad for my health but I enjoy a smoke"

 

3. The same can be said of alcohol, based of figures produced by qualified people the safe level of alcohol consumption has been greatly reduced. But people who like a glass to much of wine per day will still drink it because they enjoy it.

 

 

4. Selfish is the word that springs to mind.

 

5. My bad breath comments are there to break up the melodious drivel being spewed out

 

1. You what? My 'qualification' comes from personally speaking to hundreds of smokers, most of whom told me they'd rather not be smokers but they can't stop it. What 'qualification' do I need? It was a first-hand observation taken directly from those who would know. What a pointless question, Ken.

 

2. Yes, and I'm sure heroin addicts enjoy what their drug does for them while they're using it, too, as do alcoholics, glue sniffers and everyone else caught up in a harmful drug habit. These people would still rather not be addicts, though, because of the overall cost of that pleasure. Very, very few of them truly think that their drug habit is a good thing to have in their lives. Without the addiction factor, most smokers would get rid of smoking - as indeed you have, Ken.

 

3. See answer 2 above.

 

4. Damn right it is, Ken. There was little more selfish than expecting the majority to be affected by your unwanted, minority drug habit, along with the 'choice' of 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere'. Even more selfishly, when smokers were required to move just a few feet to smoke without affecting others, some of them found that totally unacceptable. Oh yes, 'selfish' nails it in one.

 

5. As was your right, seeing as you were spewing most of it. Are you sure about it being 'melodious' though? All I could hear from you was a grating noise.

 

Regards.

[Wordbender]

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.

 

You've really thought about this debate, yes?

 

[kleinboet]

I see this thread is still going.

Wordbender - You have a way with words (hence your nickname) you are avidly non-smoking - yet you will push to see that an unfair legislation or act is quashed. I am going to ask you a straight question: Why do you think the government - when having arranged agreement with ALL parties - suddenly decided to renege on the idea of SHARING recources!

Is there not enough recources in the country for the smokers and non-smokers? Of course there are!

Even though you are dead against it - this law is unfair! These people. even though you despise them - are LEGALLY enjoying their habit! Then comes draconian Legislation banning a person from smoking, not only from his/her local but from WMC's, Legion Halls, Bingo halls, etc. WHY?????

Surely a non-smoker is allowed somewhere to smoke, or are the non-smokers going to replace the lost income from these organisations? They are the innocent parties in this debacle!

Edited January 22, 2008 by kleinboet

[Wordbender]

1. I am going to ask you a straight question: Why do you think the government - when having arranged agreement with ALL parties - suddenly decided to renege on the idea of SHARING recources!

 

2. Is there not enough recources in the country for the smokers and non-smokers? Of course there are!

 

3. Even though you are dead against it - this law is unfair! These people. even though you despise them - are LEGALLY enjoying their habit! Then comes draconian Legislation banning a person from smoking, not only from his/her local but from WMC's, Legion Halls, Bingo halls, etc. WHY?????

 

4. Surely a non-smoker is allowed somewhere to smoke, or are the non-smokers going to replace the lost income from these organisations? They are the innocent parties in this debacle!

 

1. I'll give you a straight answer, Kleinboet; I don't have the facts any more than you do. My research showed that the official reason was the protection of staff, and that it was a Health & Safety issue. My source - who is well-placed to know the 'official' line on these things - told me that bar staff could no more elect to work in a hazardous environment than building site workers could choose not the wear hard hats.

 

You may believe that or you may not, but it's the only official declaration I could find. Out of interest, why do you think the Government seeks to restrict something that brings in so much tax revenue?

 

2. See the above. If the 'official line' is true, then it's not a matter of resource but Health & Safety.

 

3. I don't despise smokers, Kleinboet. My mother was a smoker, and I have many friends and family that are smokers. What I despise, is smoking, and mainly the industry that knowingly inflicts this largely unwanted drug habit on us, killing millions in the process. As for 'why', I can only refer you yet again to the official reason I was given.

 

4. Sorry, I don't understand the 'non-smoker being allowed to smoke' line. However, I also reserve the status of 'innocent party' for any non-smoker seriously affected by smoking, wherever it happened.

 

Regards.

[Leon Roskilly]

It's not the ban on smoking that is keeping people away from an evening's enjoyment in the company of friends at their local pub or bingo hall.

 

It's the addictive craving that they have aquired which means that they have lost the capacity for enjoyment unless they can relieve that craving by sucking on a injurious substance every ten minutes or so.

 

For before Walter Raleigh returned from the New World with the drug that would line the pockets of a few, and condemn hundreds of thousands to blighted lives and long, often painful deaths, the inns were as full as any recent times.

 

Smoking has finally been revealed for what it is, not only destroying the health and the lives of participants, not only causing discomfort and smelly annoyance to none-smokers, but risking their health as well (To those whose lungs are affected by second-hand smoke, you need to add the lives lost in fires caused by smokers, the lives lost on the roads as smokers fumble for a fag (sometimes a lighted fag dropped upon their laps), and the emotional damage caused to those who have seen loved ones struggle to cope with life as smoking takes its toll on their health, eventually struggling to breathe, and enduring a long painful and far too early death).

 

The ban may cause a temporary blip in pub attendance, but as smoking overall more rapidly declines, and people are no longer pathetically 'prevented' from going to the pub, there will be a rennaisance in pub going, and people will eventually wonder at the conditions we once all had to endure.

 

Unfortunately, some will never be able to shake off the addiction that they have fallen prey to, and will live their miserable lives until most of them go to that early grave.

 

They have my greatest sympathy, much more so their relatives who will be forced to endure along with them

[nick]

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.

 

kleinboet you keep asking why not have smoking and non-smoking establishments?

 

Could you at least address the point I made earlier, how would you protect the right to breathe for the groups I detail above in your idyllic smoking premises?

 

Ken - how can you continue to ignore the huge difference between smoking and drinking.

 

If I choose to go to my local non-smoking pub stand at the bar and drink 3 pints and walk home, assaulting no one en-route, peeing in no doorways, then if I cause harm to anyone it is to myself alone.

 

Were we to go back to the "good old days" and I visted my local pub, then if I stood at the bar, had the same three pints, but this time stood next to another drinker that also chose to smoke, even though that smoker also drank three pints walked home etc, he (or she) has still caused me harm by smoking their cigarette.

 

It is the difference between night and day.

 

One causes harm to innocent by-standers regardless of the intent of the doer (smoking). The other only causes harm as a result of illegal actions of the doer (drinking).

 

And just as a final thought, if drinking is such a bad thing why the desperation to have smoking allowed in pubs etc again. Why not campaign for the closure of all pubs, clubs etc which currently seems to be what you wish to see. Or do smokers that drink not cause any harm to anyone else by drinking?

[snakey1]

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????

 

 

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

Time , as always , will tell.

 

There are roughly 10 billion reasons why the government wont ban smoking altogether and they all go into the governments coffers plus as i've said the minor fact that prohibition does'nt work (look at americas prohibiton and then try looking at other substances made illegal to use in this country such as cannabis, or any other illegal drug, illegal to own and use but they can't even keep them out of prisons which are supposed to be pretty secure environments let alone off the streets) out right banning doesn't work and simply puts the supply into the hands of criminals where as at the moment the government has the best of both worlds no-one sueing them because of exposure to smoke at work and yet all that lovely tax still coming in.

Yes time will tell but i wouldn't hold your breath waiting.

Edited January 22, 2008 by snakey1

[Steve Walker]

how would you protect the right to breathe for the groups I detail above in your idyllic smoking premises?

 

How is it protected in those workplaces which are exempt from the ban?

[kleinboet]

I think we are going round in circles with this thread!

Firstly to wordbender - apologies I put a non-smoker where I should have put smoker!

 

I have spoken to my local's OWNER (not landlord) who has stated quite openly that any staff working in a smoking environment, would have to be smokers themselves! As she stated "We are not unreasonable, the non-smokers are" she said that every argument that the non-smoker gave them was disproved and usually ended with the non-smoker walking off saying " the legislation has been introduced by the Govenment who KNEW what they were doing."?????????????

 

As I have said before, I am a non-smoker, but I feel that this legislation is unfair and biased towards non-smokers by not giving them (the smokers) the choice of where to drink or eat or watch the footie etc.

 

CHOICE is what this legislation needs - from the staff working there to the owners!

Edited January 22, 2008 by kleinboet