LIBS

D

doca

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 Aug 2004
Messages
105
Location
Ireland
Visit site
I hopped over to London last week on a LIBS dry run. Now I am having second toughts on going over again.....I found all the smoking in pubs, restaurants, etc., a bit of a shock !

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The main trouble with LIBS is that the only beer worth drinking is the black stuff /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. I'll be going, but I'll be coming back home for a decent pint of Ringwood Best. Come to think of it, it would be cheaper to take the day off and stay in the pub - no overpriced ticket, no train fare, cheaper beer and food, no unnecessary goodies bought after a lunch of guiness..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Try the John Wotherspoon chain of pubs. They have spent enormous amounts per pub on ventilation [£150k] and always have a no smoking section. All are reputed to be musaq free too, making for civilised conversation. Beer, etc. is reasonbly priced as is the food. Limited variety but decent helpings and prices.

I have no shares in the company but have contributed to its prosperity.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The Fox@Excel outside the Excel is pretty smoke free and if you want totally smoke free there is a non-smoking section too. and sofas

<hr width=100% size=1>A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a Unicorn
 
Smoking may not be compulsory Colin, however passive smoking is considered to be as fatal as dragging on your own weed. This apalling habit should be declared illegal in all countries, not in just one small island off the coast of Europe. Thousands have happily quit smoking since the ban was introduced here. I'm not pontificating, just stating facts.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
>>passive smoking is considered to be as fatal as dragging on your own weed>>

No

Passive smoking is considered to confer added risk of certain diseases, but no study that has passed scientific peer approval has ever shown conclusively that it is actually as dangerous as smoking directly. All the major studies show it confers substantially less risk

Pedantry to some extent, but still an important point

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
As a smoker I admit I'm truely addicted to the weed. I also accept that bans will eventually come in all public places but because we have the situation that it's not totally inforce everywhere at the moment I have to lament at my YC decision to ban smoking in the clubs buildings. The pridiction is that we will lose 8% on bar and galley takings due to smoking members b*****ing off down the local pub because they haven't got a ban just yet. As a club we will not increase our membership because we have a ban in place but we are guaranteed to lose trade!
I can only think of the situation where by we run an open event, the racers have been unable to smoke, they then come ashore to get a well earned pint and must stand outside to have a fag

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
In my ignorance I would assume that the risks of passive smoking are co-related to exposure/dose. As a casual passive smoker, ie. only exposed occasionally in pubs etc, my risk of illness must be much lower than it would be if I were a smoker myself. However, there must be a substantial risk to those that work in a smokey environment, such as bar staff etc. These people are probably more at risk from their continuous occupational exposure than they would be from smoking themselves.

<hr width=100% size=1>Think I'll draw some little rabbits on my head, from a distance they might be mistaken for hairs.
 
It's only the tax they raise that stops the government banning smoking, they will never do it whilst it's such a wonderful earner for them.

Baccy dealers on the street corners, "hey mush wanna buy some really good weed? I'ts so good it'll kill yer"

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
It's only a metter of time before we get the same ban - and it won't come a day too soon for me. Having spent 10 days on the Shannon this year, it was a real pleasure to be able to drink and eat in smoke free pubs and restaurants. The smokers happily gathered outside for their "puff". I might even start to go to the pub myslf again and wreck my liver instead of my lungs!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Not according to any of the studies I've seen.

Smoking is more dangerous than passive smoking - you are inhaling the end products directly, as opposed to inhaling just the smoke. There is undoubtably a link between levels of exposure and risk, but inhaling directly is far more dangerous

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
Re: Passive dangers

Do you remember <A target="_blank" HREF=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/2/newsid_2493000/2493567.stm> Roy Castle</A>?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top