No smoking in Public Places NB

[Althorne]

Twostroke has it right. Banning it is discrimination. I smoked for 40 years and don't mind people smoking around me unless the premises has inadequate ventilation, then I suffer like everyone else. Educate the store keeper. If you start supporting this what will your answer be when the raggies want all the smokies banned from the sea????? Car drivers get the blame now how long before us?
Discrimination hits EVERYONE somehow. Don't support it at anytime.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re:ASAP.afaiac.NM

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[Dave1258]

It will be interesting to see how things work out 'South of the Border', penalties up to £2000 (ouch)!!.

I personally don't think that the smoking habit is 'objectional' it's a habit like any other. However some steps need to be taken to prevent others from breathing in the smoke, everyone knows that smoking poses a serious health risk, segragation is not discrimination in a working environment.



<hr width=100% size=1> A man should have two things in life, a boat and a wife willing to let him have one.

 

[Kevin]

if it wasnt for the health risks for those around the smoker i would say that it shouldnt be banned but its the risks that annoy me, the smell and smoke etc is something that as a society for the benefits of freedom of choice you can /have to put up with but shouldnt have to contend with something that can affect health because someone wants to light up in a confined space like a pub, office or whatever.

was out with a group of mates once having something to eat and these people nearby lit up whilst everybody else was eating it stunk the place out and they were the only ones in there smoking so a a little drunk we all walked over and began to burp and fart in their direction obviously they thought it smelly and disgusting, but we had just as much right to carry out our disgusting smelly habit as they did - (very funny well when your drunk it definitly was) we got a round of applause and they soon left the place and surprisingly didnt end up turning into a fight got a bit shovey but that was bound to happen.

kevin

 

[markc]

Ban It!

If they did, I would visit pubs loads more

M

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.geocities.com/jinto100/Jintopics.html

 

[DogsBody]

Ban it! - No question

Its nothing to do with Nanny states. Its about choice - the choice of a non smoker to go to a pub, resturant or whatever and be able to breath smoke free air.

Nothing like drinking - If I have 8 pints a night and pickle my liver, thats my problem, I'm not forcing those standing next to me at the bar to drink half of everyone I buy. With smoking EVERYONE inhales it whether they want to or not, thats the difference and thats why it should be banned in public. I've wlaked out of resturants on several occasions because I found the smoke in the air just too much.

Also, why is it that most smokers seem to think its alright to just throw their dog-end on the street (some actually take the effort to try and put it out first). I'm sure we'd all agree that just throwing your rubbish on the street when your finished with it is not a nice thing to do?

Just my opinion (but I do feel strongly on the subject).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

Re: Ban it! - No question

Rather than have a go at us smokers for doing something that is entirely legal - wouldn't it be better for the establishments to properly cater for both customers??

As for good and bad smokers... same as good and bad MOBO's.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DogsBody]

Re: Ban it! - No question

Short of sticking huge great extractor fans over the head of everyone who lights up how can they stop smoke wafting over to non smoking customers?

Yes I know its legal to smoke but that doesn't make it sociable to do so.

Agreed about good and bad smokers though.

DogsBody.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[byron]

Let those who don't smoke use non smoking pubs, and smokers use smoking pubs. Let the market decide which pubs/restaurants do well.

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.alexander-advertising.co.uk

 

[deborahann]

Re: No smoking IN GENERAL

well having been a canal & river boat person, my recent first trip on a sea boat was extremely interesting, everying smoked, the boat engines starting up caused a major marina blackout ! but then the nick name for the boat is mucky farter, and it certainly was. the outboard belched smoke, and even the driver was a heavy smoker.

however, after slipping between boats at the refueling barge, a panic stricken diesel despatcher then had a major disaster with a major diesel splillage. BUT the best was the eberspatcher belching a serious amount of smoke out of the side of the boat as we were refueling (yes the side tied up to the barge) PANIC, PANIC, yes, big time he thought the boat tied next to the hundreds of tons of fuel was about to blow up. he asked me what had caused the smoke, i thought gosh think i know, but seriously best to be sure, under the circumstances. said ask the "smoker" at the back of the boat.

so after recent experiences, smoking in pubs is quite tame really !!

<hr width=100% size=1>deborah on delft (correct spelling)

 

[markc]

We live in a democracy and the majority rule - 80% of the population don't smoke....QED

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.geocities.com/jinto100/Jintopics.html

 

[adarcy]

Unfortunately, democracy is also becoming opression of the minority by the majority.

In times past, true freedom was classed as being liberal (with a small L) and it meant accepting people may believe different things to oneself but allowing them to and letting them get on with it. Now Political Correctness and trying to force opinions on others eg foxhunting appears to be what democracy means.

What is exactly wrong with Byron's suggestion of smoking and non-smoking pubs clubs etc allowing people to make their own mind up? Do you somehow feel you have a right or even a duty to force your opinions on others? Of course, vice versa does apply and noone should have smoke forced on them by smokers but equally if someone wants to work in a smoky pub atmosphere then theyy should be allowed (and not allowed to sue about it later)

I'm all for individual choice and responsibility, why should 80% of any group inhibit that (naturally I exclude terrorism/murder/deciding to drive on the "wrong" side of the road)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[markc]

I do agree in everyone being able to do what they wish, but not to the detroment of others (eg foxhunting only bothers the Fox!). It is wrong to make someone work in a smoke filled environment. It is just as wrong to assume that the worker has a choice to work elsewhere too.

Even your 'liberal eutopia' has rules - you have stated rules that you are happy to adhere to - psycos, terrorists, Europeans would not be as happy as you to abide by them.



<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.geocities.com/jinto100/Jintopics.html

 

[adarcy]

I think we are probably agreeing <<not to the detriment of others>>
but the trouble is where to draw the line and what are the "rules" that everyone/enough accept for the common good.

I do think workers have a choice where to work. What many imply when they say that is that they can't get as much dosh elsewhere therefore "it's not worth it" whereas I think they have the choice but shouldn't have the ability to bitch about their choice and sue afterwards.

It's just that I don't think "because 80%.......QED" it isn't as simple as that unless you believe tyranny is OK as long as it has a majority - funny idea of a "free society" IMHO

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ArthurWood]

Well, unless you throw up, alcohol doesn't leave a smell on someone else's clothes

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ArthurWood]

You may rest your case, but obviously he still doesn't get the fact that by drinking alcohol you are only poisoning yourself, not the people around you. But that's your 'considerate' smoker for you/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>