Smoking in public is going to have a partial ban. Thank god! I can now go out without fear that I'm going to be breathing in noxious gasses and making my clothes stink! Bring it on!

 

But, I'm disappointed because it doesn't go far enough; there will still be plenty of pubs that don't serve food.

 

What we needed (and didn't get) is a total ban on smokin in public places so it would *force* the smokers (and believe me, nicotine addicts really need forcing) to stop. But this pathetic government just couldn't live up to their manifesto.

 

Well, hey-ho, it's a start and a blanket ban on smoking in all public places won't be that far off. :bow:

If smokers don't like fresh air in pubs that ban smoking, then clear off and go to a pub that allows smoking!

 

No. If non-smokers don't like smokey air in pubs, then clear off and set up a non-smoking pub. The right to smoke was there way before the lack of right to.

Nice to see some more reasoned views on both sides :).

 

I too am t-total because I get anti-social in drink, and decided it was unfair to take out my aggresiveness on innocent bystanders. So it seems that I might be a yellow (not really) wrinkled(nope) hacking (never cough) smelly (my mrs doesnt smoke, and neither she nor anyone else has ever complained) toothless( guilty, but fook all to do with fags) old hasbeen, but i do have a social conscience.

 

I dont actually care if the ban smoking in pubs, i dont work there any more and I dont use them, I can happily sit on a 9 hr flight without a fag ( or w@nky stick on patches), or go and visit someone for the evening and not smoke in their house.

 

Once again the point of my comments was the erosion of personal liberties, and as a heads up to you guys that the masive lobby machine wil not suddenly dissapear, but will find new soft targets, lets face it , the car is already taxed to the hilt.

 

The other question is can the system simply follow the loss of revenue involved in this ban (either through lower alchohol sales, or lower cigarette sales), or will they seek the revenue elsewhere?

 

Its a call to think , not a call to have a tear up

Hi Andrew, hope your keeping well over there, its like I said I dont smoke in other peoples company unless they say its ok and I dont ask, its my habit not theirs. ;)

 

Doing well, cheers! Been redders for the last few weeks, starting to get cold though. Missing the Zed!! Got so many ideas for it...... :hyper:

Nice to see some more reasoned views on both sides :).

 

I too am t-total because I get anti-social in drink, and decided it was unfair to take out my aggressiveness on innocent bystanders. So it seems that I might be a yellow (not really) wrinkled(nope) hacking (never cough) smelly (my Mrs doesnt smoke, and neither she nor anyone else has ever complained) toothless( guilty, but fook all to do with fags) old has been, but i do have a social conscience.

 

I dont actually care if the ban smoking in pubs, i dont work there any more and I dont use them, I can happily sit on a 9 hr flight without a fag ( or w@nky stick on patches), or go and visit someone for the evening and not smoke in their house.

 

Once again the point of my comments was the erosion of personal liberties, and as a heads up to you guys that the massive lobby machine will not suddenly disappear, but will find new soft targets, lets face it , the car is already taxed to the hilt.

 

The other question is can the system simply follow the loss of revenue involved in this ban (either through lower alcohol sales, or lower cigarette sales), or will they seek the revenue elsewhere?

 

Its a call to think , not a call to have a tear up

 

you see it as an erosion of your liberty, I see it as an extension of my liberty not to be able to sit in a smokey environment, because personally I like going to pubs and clubs and every pub and club I have ever been to is full of smoke, the smell doesn't really bother me, smokers don't really bother me, but I'm allergic to something they put in cigarettes which really ****s up my head for a few days,

 

The government will aim to get rid of smoking over the next 40 years, an outright ban now would mean that tax payers would be overloaded paying for the treatment of all the smokers in hospital with strokes/heart attacks and cancer, the aim is to slowly decrease the population dependant on cigarettes until there is a point the revenue needed to treat people who are in hospital directly as a result of smoking is not significant,

 

The reason I would not smoke other than my allergies and the health implications is that personally I would not like to be addicted to something to the point of not being able to go a sustained period of time without having it, most smokers I know who have broken the addiction are happier without it than they were with it.

Smoking in public is going to have a partial ban. Thank god! I can now go out without fear that I'm going to be breathing in noxious gasses and making my clothes stink! Bring it on!

 

But, I'm disappointed because it doesn't go far enough; there will still be plenty of pubs that don't serve food.

 

What we needed (and didn't get) is a total ban on smokin in public places so it would *force* the smokers (and believe me, nicotine addicts really need forcing) to stop. But this pathetic government just couldn't live up to their manifesto.

 

Well, hey-ho, it's a start and a blanket ban on smoking in all public places won't be that far off. :bow:

oh dear does this mean if my turbo seals go i cant drive on the public roads?

oh dear does this mean if my turbo seals go i cant drive on the public roads?

 

Excellent! I see someone's been to the Rod Hull school of Humour! :mac1:

 

;)

Good God, chill out. You calling me a goody goody 10 year old? :rofl:

 

Alcohol is more of a killer, but it sure as hell isn't pasive. I'm not going to get liver failure by sitting next to an alcoholic.

 

Is it not? I think you'll find most spouses are killed by drunken partners, more people are kill at weekends by drunks either kicking off, driving cars, or just doing stipid things that seem funny at the time etc.

 

On a different point, a recent public survey showed more than 90% of people in Ireland support the smoking ban, including many smokers ! This is almost the same in the UK.

 

Who comissioned the surveys you quote? Why did they do have a survey ie what point where they trying to make?

 

I know it seems to many smokers that their rights and freedom of choice are being eroded, but unfortunatly, as they are the ones causing the problem by choosing to smoke, they must be the ones who have to compromise..

 

What problem are they causing? Who told you they are doing this and what is their agenda?

 

I fully support the rights of smokers to enjoy killing themselves, if thats what they choose to do. However they just cannot be allowed to continue wrecking the health of people who have chosen not to expose themselves to those risks...

 

Who told you they are doing this and what is their agenda?

 

The fact is, smokers have shown that self regulation doesn't work, and now governments all over the world are waking up to the fact that they must act and force the issue.

 

Why? What is in it for them?

 

 

I don't mean this personally in any way, but in general the attitude of some smokers towards their habit is fundamentally selfish. It is not acceptable to make avoiding smoke a non-smoker's problem, but all too many smokers are happy to say things like "If you don't like smoke, don't goto bars" etc. They are the ones choosing to persue that habit, therefore they will have to change it. It's going to happen, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks of it... so nows the time to start dealing with it.

 

Just my $00.2 worth. :)

 

The Germans didn't like Jews. They were good business people and because they stuck together they weathered the depresion better than most. The Natzis told all sorts of lies about them and got away with it because people could be arsed to seek the truth and wanted someone to blame for their own plight.

 

This will not reduce rates of cancer in the UK. It will has it has done in the states, close about 20% of pubs and bars and further reduce freedoms of choice.

 

You should read what people write, because i'm a none smoker. My sister is Doctor who works in the cancer unit of the main hospital in Sheffield. I think before you go spouting about things you should know what your taking about. Not just espouse party political doctrine which has as much to do with the truth as the pope being jewish.

 

Although the government quote a few sellected specialist who are linking smoking to cancer the general opinion within the medical world is there is no link. Vairious chest ailments and illness, yes , but no more than working in certain industries.

 

If so many people are opposed to smoking surely it would be good business for bars to ban it. Which they have the right to now under present law. So why haven't they?

 

If smoking in such a killer howcome the oldest 4 people that have ever lived were all smokers?

 

Why isn't the Medeteranian rife with people dying of cancer?

 

Why do countries in the Northern Emesphere have higher cancer rate than the southern half of the world? In particullar the more modern econermies?

When we smoke far less.

 

Why does the third world Who smoke far more than we do have less cancer than us?

 

Why is it that the longest lived and healthiest generation in Britain (the generation that fourt the second world war) who smoked more than any previous or later generation suffered far less from cancer or obeasity than subsequent generations?

 

Why is it that you feel so well informed that you can lecture us all when you never seem to ask basic questions required to deem the truth?

Why do you feel the need to bring other arguments into this? Is this because really smokers don't actually have a leg to stand on? They have nothing positive about their habbit...and it is a habbit.

 

Seems smokers are selfish. Non-smokers have rarely had it their. About time you're made to feel how it's like NOT to be able to smoke in PUBLIC places. After all, we've been refused that right to go to PUBLIC places and be able to breath clean fresh air ever since time began.

Why do you feel the need to bring other arguments into this? Is this because really smokers don't actually have a leg to stand on? They have nothing positive about their habbit...and it is a habbit.

 

Seems smokers are selfish. Non-smokers have rarely had it their. About time you're made to feel how it's like NOT to be able to smoke in PUBLIC places. After all, we've been refused that right to go to PUBLIC places and be able to breath clean fresh air ever since time began.

 

yawn :rofl:

yawn :rofl:

 

Yawn, another smoker who can't see the other side of the argument :rofl:

statement withdrawn

no funky you are the one with the problem i suggest you go back through this thread and take a damn good hard look at what is being said and maybe then you will realise what a fool you look

 

I don't think Si sounds a fool at all in this thread - certainly no more than everyone else.

 

We are all expressing our own opinion on a very contraversial subject, as we are (just ;) ) still able to do.

 

I can see both sides of the arguement and I think Jock has made a sensible point about the civil liberties of us all being eroded silently away by a controlling and arrogant government. I will judge each and every further legislation to control the freedom of movement of the individual as and when they are announced..........

 

It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that those who smoke will be against any ban whilst those who don't support it. As a non-somker myself I welcome any measures that prevent me being forced to breath cigarette smoke when I have a night out, but I fully admit that is my own selfish point of view on this subject.

 

I actually suffer quite badly from being exposed to fag smoke for long periods so I tend to "stay away" unless the function is in a non-smoking establishment or area. Funnilly enough I don't mind cigar smoke - it doesn't affect my throat or sinusses at all.

 

This has been an interesting thread all round as everyone has shared some good points for both sides.

 

Richard :smw:

non smokers should protest by sitting next to smokers and wear headphones with volume up to full playing that tinny noise dance music that winds everyone up on the train lol

 

I think smoking ban can be summed up like this

 

good for non smokers

bad for smokers

 

the two camps rarely agree with each other,

Does passive smoking add that much more damage to our health than the 8 pints of beer, fat laden Indian meal and ear splitting club music that we still all go and partake of??

 

As a non-smoker I accept the fact that passive smoking is part of going out. I do agree however that smoking shoud be banned in restaurants and confined areas like public transport.

Does passive smoking add that much more damage to our health than the 8 pints of beer, fat laden Indian meal and ear splitting club music that we still all go and partake of??

 

Absolutely not :) Good to see a non-smoker talking some sense.

 

2nd hand smoke doesn't do much except upset non-smokers, but 2nd hand alcohol quite often causes death. Why isn't there more done about that? Because it's not trendy to complain about like passive smoking is.

News flash: government proposals announced tonight to ban the consumption of alchohol on all public transport including flights. The reason quoted was the risk to other passengers.

 

Now let me think, when did they ban smoking on public transport including flights, was it 94ish?? The reason they quoted then? risk to other passengers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A note also on the NHS issue, the cost incurred when smokers are treated for chest infections, the ubiquitos cancer et al I am sure is offsetby the fact that, when they get ill, they generally die younger and quicker.

 

A little known fact is that, generally speaking, smokers do not suffer from Parkinsons disease or altzhiemers (?), a debilitating affliction which causes people to lose mental faculties and require constant (and expensive) care long into their dotage.

Why do you feel the need to bring other arguments into this? Is this because really smokers don't actually have a leg to stand on? They have nothing positive about their habbit...and it is a habbit.

 

Seems smokers are selfish. Non-smokers have rarely had it their. About time you're made to feel how it's like NOT to be able to smoke in PUBLIC places. After all, we've been refused that right to go to PUBLIC places and be able to breath clean fresh air ever since time began.

 

Obviously there no point trying to comunicate as you don't seem to grasp anyone elses points or even read at all. I'm not a smoker

 

Jock, like I said mate 1994 is too far back for Fungsky to recall and it's difficult for him to understand any alternative points when is he spends too much time up his own arse complimenting himself on his superior intelect.

 

This is so fooking boaring when people carn't even contrive a reasonable argument to support the mindless diotripe they espouse.

 

Most importantly Mr Fungus Who the Fook are you and what qualifies you to Decide what people can or carn't, should or shouldn't do.

 

I've had it with this place. I'm going to play with the big boys and girls.

Good to see there are some nice members on here. Hmmmmmm