Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[mr motorola]

As a smoker i can see both sides of the argument.I must admit that being in a smoke filled room particularly when eating is most unpleasant or in confined spaces such as when flying etc.However i do feel the ban is overkill.Many of the restaurants pubs etc have ample provision to accommodate smokers and non smokers alike.The ban is here and its not going to go away,infact i can see it being extended, and yes i feel the minority won.

As i work outside,my hope is that ALL the gas guzzling vehicles chucking out all those pollutants are taken off the road or priced out of existance,as i am sure that they are doing me just as much harm if not more than my smoking.However i guess there are an awful lot of non smoking 4x4 drivers out there who would not agree

Chuby , welcome

 

FWIW , i agree with your sentiments entirely. Alas , i feel you may be disproved by the 'experts' on here with plenty of links and statistics thrown about , just for good measure.

 

I myself work outside , but need a van to travel from job to job ,15-20 jobs a day. Finding myself stuck behind a big chelsea tractor / bus / wagon or indeed a normal family car for that matter is no worse a detriment to your health as the queue you are stuck in , behind the vehicles mentioned. Of course , that's if you are to believe the experts.

 

You know different and so do i .

 

On smoking and your post , i think that your idea of having seperate rooms for smoking and non-smoking under the same roof , would STILL NOT be enough for the anti brigade.

 

Smoking while others are eating.............I've never done and FWIW , as you may agree , i don't know of a smoker who has.

Of course that is not to say that it has never happened , merely i have never seen it.

[Peter Sharpe]

Peter, that is a competely inflammatory statement!!

 

Maybe, but it seemed perfectly in line with the general tone of the discussion.

[Wordbender]

Ok wordbender, I won't go through all your statements because you run around with your words (you should have been a politician). Just answer me this - are you quite happy with the idea of smokers of all ages, races and gender, to be sent outside in any sort of weather, while you sit inside, when you know quite well that this can be changed by an ammendment to the law!

 

They are not being SENT outside, they are required to go outside because they want to indulge in something that affects everyone around them. Stop portraying smokers as lifeboatmen or mountain rescue teams you silly man.

 

As for me being a politician, you've got some nerve haven't you? You should write fairy stories, Kleiboet, if only you could raise your grasp of reality.

[Wordbender]

Mr M - As soon as you paint them in a corner they then start playing with words (SENT - I thought they had a choice! mmmmmmmmmmmmm) that's the only way they can hide how blinkered they are!

 

Yet again you refuse to deal with the issue. So, do smokers have a choice, Kleinboet? Or is there a law that forces them to brave the blizzards and tempests you seem to believe constantly ravage the pub gardens of this nation?

 

You claimed a White Paper was a done deal, when it's only a discussion document open for ammendment.

 

You claimed there were hordes of informants lurking on street corners waiting to dob-in innocent smokers.

 

You make up accusations about people you've never met and refuse to justify them or apologise for them.

 

You invent 'overheard protests' from non-smokers to bolster your nonsense points.

 

You are constantly proved wrong and you never acknowledge it.

 

You accused me of consulting medical professionals, as if that was the wrong thing to do when researching the effects of smoking and health.

 

You accuse non-smokers of condoning the deaths of smokers forced out into the killer storms.

 

You, mate, have lost the plot.

[Wordbender]

... that's if you are to believe the experts.

 

You know different and so do i .

 

 

Mr.M, are you an 'expert' at your job? Should we believe you when you give us the benefit of your first-hand experience, or should we believe someone who has never done that job but somehow claims to know more than you do about it? How does that work, then?

 

You say you 'know different'. How did you come by this knowledge, and how come the specialists that work day in and day out in that particular subject miss what you claim to know?

 

You frequently dismiss the facts, findings, statistics and evidence presented by acknowledged experts on the subject of smoking and health, then claim to 'now different'. I ask again, how do you know more than the acknowledged experts and why should your opinion outrank that of the professionals?

[mr motorola]

Mr.M, are you an 'expert' at your job? Should we believe you when you give us the benefit of your first-hand experience, or should we believe someone who has never done that job but somehow claims to know more than you do about it? How does that work, then?

 

You say you 'know different'. How did you come by this knowledge, and how come the specialists that work day in and day out in that particular subject miss what you claim to know?

 

You frequently dismiss the facts, findings, statistics and evidence presented by acknowledged experts on the subject of smoking and health, then claim to 'now different'. I ask again, how do you know more than the acknowledged experts and why should your opinion outrank that of the professionals?

The word 'expert' is a word tossed around all too easy these days. Just as an example , my local radio station, **** radio , on the hour every hour casually throws the word in , regarding their bulletins , using such statements as 'plastic bottle expert' and 'fish and chip expert' and last but not least , an expert who is on almost everyday........the 'terrorism expert'. UNBELIEVABLE!!! An expert on terrorism??!! , would that , in your mind make him an expert terrorist??

 

Back on track , if the findings and research in question , relevant to smoking , and the mortality rate , infection rate is so outright , then why haven't the experts lobbied and successfully achieved a worldwide ban. I am not questioning the facts in the links , i dare say that there is some , if not total fact in their findings , if so , then why hasn't there been a total ban?

 

On the other hand , could it be that smoking has now become the new-age scapegoat for pretty much all things detrimental for our health.

 

With advert after advert in the tabloids , radio and television , we are being asked to consider giving up smoking , not told to.

 

I wouldn't say that i dismiss the findings in the links but i am , a little sceptical of them , should i say.

 

In all of the links , smoking is top of the pops in every one. If and more than likely the research , 100's of 1000's of man hours and millions of ££ spent on these findings would be correct , i ask again , why hasn't it been banned worldwide?

[kleinboet]

Wordbender - your statements on my postings have been insulting biased and downrightrubbish as spouted by government. You know very well that smokers have been FORCED to go outside for a cigarette. Since cigarette smoking started in the world, it has been glamourised to the extent that is was, to coin a phrase, "uncool"! not to smoke. Even in the sixties and seventies the femme fatale of movies, books etc. were always seen with a long cigarette holder, lounging on the settee SMOKING!!

Advertisments abounded, some showing cowboys relaxing with a cigarette others taking a more comical approach (remember the Hamlet ads?)

Both you and I know that smoking is addictive, so does the government (read the small print on the ads) but you are still in denial by comforting yourself with trite statements like "they only have to walk a few paces" So did Scott in Antarctic!!

 

"You claimed a White Paper was a done deal, when it's only a discussion document open for ammendment.

 

You claimed there were hordes of informants lurking on street corners waiting to dob-in innocent smokers.

You make up accusations about people you've never met and refuse to justify them or apologise for them.

 

You invent 'overheard protests' from non-smokers to bolster your nonsense points.You are constantly proved wrong and you never acknowledge it.

 

You accused me of consulting medical professionals, as if that was the wrong thing to do when researching the effects of smoking and health.

 

You accuse non-smokers of condoning the deaths of smokers forced out into the killer storms.

 

You, mate, have lost the plot.

 

I am afraid it is you who have lost the plot and I only hope you can PROVE the underlined statements as they a BLATENT untruths!!

Edited January 28, 2008 by kleinboet

[Wordbender]

"they only have to walk a few paces" So did Scott in Antarctic!!

 

So now, using a smoking facility is on a par with Scott's exploits? See my 'lost the plot' assessment in a previous post.

 

 

"You claimed a White Paper was a done deal, when it's only a discussion document open for ammendment.

 

You were continually bleating on about the Government 'reneging' on a deal. There was no deal until the White Paper had been debated. Fact.

 

You claimed there were hordes of informants lurking on street corners waiting to dob-in innocent smokers.

 

You claimed exactly this. Your words, all nonsense.

 

You invent 'overheard protests' from non-smokers to bolster your nonsense points.

 

I believe, having seen you in action on this forum, that you made up the 'overheard' protests about which you posted.

 

You accuse non-smokers of condoning the deaths of smokers forced out into the killer storms.

 

You said non-smokers were condoning exactly that, as you well know.

 

You, mate, have lost the plot.

 

I am afraid it is you who have lost the plot and I only hope you can PROVE the underlined statements as they a BLATENT untruths!!

 

Nope - they're true. Then again, in your world facts mean little anyway. You don't even take responsibility for your own words so it's futile to expect you to acknowledge the validity of someone else's.

 

Let's hope the ban never reaches La-La Land - you'd be seriously stuffed then.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Wordbender

[snakey1]

Both you and I know that smoking is addictive, so does the government (read the small print on the ads) but you are still in denial by comforting yourself with trite statements like "they only have to walk a few paces" So did Scott in Antarctic!!

Antartica average annual temp -50 degrees C , UK average temp for 2006 +9.7 degrees C, nice comparison kleinboet

[John S]

"You claimed a White Paper was a done deal, when it's only a discussion document open for ammendment.

 

You were continually bleating on about the Government 'reneging' on a deal. There was no deal until the White Paper had been debated. Fact.

 

I thought the various ministers and Lords debated on a Green Paper, and after all the amendments & etc it became a White Paper and part of the law....