Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[mr motorola]

You know, maybe we could do with a sarcasm smiley?

Unlike some on here , i WILL speak my mind on subjects that run close to my heart , whatever they may be.

 

As a whole i personally feel that smokers have been given a bum deal with the new ban.

Also , one of the reasons (i think) that smokers are reserved in their own personal postings on this topic is for the feeling of being called a 'drug addict' or being tarred with the same brush as so. No-one is stating that smoking is good for you / anyone , what i am saying is (on behalf of , i hope) give smokers a break.

A little old saying from a similar post some months back was................' i can't wait for the ban , i hate the smell of smoke and i'm more than looking forward to a drink in a pub without the foul stink of cig smoke' Where are you all then? The promised running of non-smokers hasn't arrived and pubs are gradually closing down due to lack of punters. The facts are there in black and white. Take a look at your local pub / club (a long hard look) because in 5-10 years time it may not be there.

 

As for smoking at work , most if not all workplaces / companies introduced a no-smoking policy many years before the major smoking ban of July '07 , so your point of ' a breath of fresh air since the ban' is pointless.

 

I used to be proud of this country , the country i was born in , but unfortunately my view of it and its leaders / advisors and fecking do-gooder brigade are casting a very dark shadow on my view of it.

[Steve Walker]

Yes, the point is that when I wrote "Clearly the law was drafted that way in order to ensure that any non-smokers who want to stand outside in the smoking shelter are protected from passive smoke, rather than to make sure that it's bloody uncomfortable for the smokers..." it was with tongue firmly in cheek.

[mr motorola]

Yes, the point is that when I wrote "Clearly the law was drafted that way in order to ensure that any non-smokers who want to stand outside in the smoking shelter are protected from passive smoke, rather than to make sure that it's bloody uncomfortable for the smokers..." it was with tongue firmly in cheek.

My apologies Steve. Honest!!!

 

With a thread such as this one which has been pretty virulent and rather heated at times with some very good posts from both sides of the table , it would / could be easy to misinterpret a post (like me!)

 

Anyway , back on track....................................

[Ken Davison South Wales]

A roof and at least three sides open, as I recall. Clearly the law was drafted that way in order to ensure that any non-smokers who want to stand outside in the smoking shelter are protected from passive smoke, rather than to make sure that it's bloody uncomfortable for the smokers...

 

I am sure sides do not enter into the equation, it is a percentage and must not be attached to the building.

 

And your reply does imply to hell with smokers, if the area is designed for smoking why the hell should they protect non-smokers who are daft enough to enter, ie it is their choice.

 

Personally I would like to see all smokers give up, all the smug anties taxes go up, and all those employed in the tobacco industry on the dole to add to the misery. I am sure that would wipe a few conceited smiles of some peoples faces.

[mr motorola]

And your reply does imply to hell with smokers, if the area is designed for smoking why the hell should they protect non-smokers who are daft enough to enter, ie it is their choice.

Personally I would like to see all smokers give up, all the smug anties taxes go up, and all those employed in the tobacco industry on the dole to add to the misery. I am sure that would wipe a few conceited smiles of some peoples faces.

My sentiments exactly Ken but Steve did say that his post was tongue in cheek.

 

I think the vision of smokers giving up altogether will only be put to the test if Mr Brown and his advisors administer a TOTAL BAN on smoking , but alas this will never happen as it will create a whopping great hole in the treasurys funds. It may be a ridiculous thing to say but smoking creates a lot of jobs and money , be it DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY.

Edited January 15, 2008 by mr motorola

[Steve Walker]

And your reply does imply to hell with smokers, if the area is designed for smoking why the hell should they protect non-smokers who are daft enough to enter, ie it is their choice.

 

Aye, Ken, I was making the point that if, as we are told, the point of the legislation is to protect non-smokers, why is it necessary to legislate on the design of smoking shelters? Like I said, we need a sarcasm smiley, doesn't always come through in print.

[poledark]

Conceited smile?????????? personally I don't give a damn about how smokers spoil their lungs, just so they don't spoil mine.

 

All this tosh about addiction and "hard to give it up"? .... saddos the lot of them. Simple bit of will power and saying NO is all it takes.

 

Den

[DavyR]

As smoking causes long term damage I would put those figures as very surprising, and being quite blunt I do not believe them.

 

Agreed. Those figures have got to be wrong, or else some other confounding factor that hasn't been thought of must be responsible. With my work hat on, that would be the first thing you'd look for when attempting to evaluate that sort of "result".

[Wordbender]

I can wholeheartedly agree you there Janet. Breathing the smoke whilst eating isn't very nice at all.

 

Here's a bit of news for you - it isn't too pleasant whilst drinking, talking or breathing, either.

 

I loathe, detest and abhor smoking, not out of spite or some misguided self-righteousness, but because smoking kills good people. In 2005 I spent two weeks in a critical care respiratory unit, watching my mother die of lung cancer. There were nine patients in that unit, and eight of them died from smoking-related diseases. I slept, ate and pretty much lived in that unit for the time my mum was in there and speaking to the relatives of the patients only reinforced my utter despair at what smokers do to themselves - and even more so to their families.

 

The cold fact is, my mother and over 100,000 people in the UK, died in 2005 because they continually sucked cancerous smoke through a paper tube. All of those grieving families, all of those lost years and the good times that could have filled them, all because of sucking down that stinking cocktail of carcinogens. And you know what the real tragedy is? The vast majority of those smokers didn't want to be smokers at all. They wanted the smoking monkey off their backs before it killed them, but they couldn't shift it. Smoking's about addiction and compulsion. The very last thing it's about is 'freedom of choice'.

 

Cigarettes are one of the products that kill millions when used exactly as designed. Alcohol abuse kills and it's rightly illegal. The illegal abuse of a motor car, kitchen knife or sporting firearm kills, but cigarettes kill when used legally and as their makers intended.

 

Smokers can pretend all they like, delude themselves all they like and protest all they like, but most of them know that, if they could offload their addiction without the effort and struggle required to do so, they'd be non-smokers by choice. Nobody honestly considers a smoking habit to be a good thing to have. Most smokers, and I've spoken to hundreds about this over the years, don't want smoking in their lives.

 

Well, neither do the rest of us.

[DavyR]

Alcohol abuse kills and it's rightly illegal.

 

Apologies if I've misunderstood you on this point, but alcohol abuse is not illegal, so long as it's carried out without danger to others (i.e. not drunk driving) and in the privacy of your own home (i.e. not being drunk and disorderly in public).

 

Alcohol abuse is certainly dangerous to the individual and can cause untold misery to families, but if you're not breaking the law in other ways (see above), it isn't illegal.