View Full Version : Smoking Ban
The Scottish parliment has now passed the outlawing of smoking in pubs,private members clubs,eating establishments & all public enclosed spaces to take affect on 26 March 2006.What do u think about it.
ps I am an ex smoker stopped 10 years ago! :confused
Should have pointed out that as ex smoker I don't agree with it.
brilliant... bout time.
I guess there will be more dowps in the streets now though and people huddled in doorways etc having their fix... wasters....
Why don't they put fags up to 20 quid a packet too when they are at it... dirty filthy habit...
One time I kissed this girl who smoked, she was beautiful, but even kissing someone as beautiful as her who smoked was like kissing an old ashtray -no wait a minute that wasn't me - that was JR.
PS. I am a sanctimonious ex smoker.
As an righteous convert I am all for a full ban
champagnebaby
01-Jul-05, 00:43
We've discussed this already :eyes *groan*
http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6428&highlight=smoking
George Brims
01-Jul-05, 00:43
As a non-smoker I am also in favour of the ban.
However, here's an odd one (from an odd place, some would say!). The California legislature has voted to ban cigraettes from prisons. The inmates have about another 3 weeks to enjoy a smoke, then they're done. I wouldn't want to work in a prison anyway, but if I did, I think I would quit before they all get withdrawal symptoms...
LOL thats a good point, so would i, coz i know whats its like trying to give up, i smoke alot and i get in a really bad mood if i am dying for a fag, i need a fag to calm down, so just imagine what it is going to be like in a prison full of mad men or woman gasping for a fag :confused
They aren't banning it in prisons here
I'm not bothered about the ban coz i don't go to the pubs and if i was trying to give up and i did go out at least i wouldn't be tempted to smoke coz no smell of the smoke about
I know its all public places
weeboyagee
01-Jul-05, 10:00
All my mates smoke (and I mean ALL of them!!!). :( I don't. :o) I wouldn't miss their craic for the world so it's my choice to join their company and inhale. Can't say I get a kick out of it though. Ban it in public places but let the pubs and clubs decide whether they want to have smoking or not - and let joe public decide whether he/she wants to frequent the place.
Champagnebaby is right - this has been discussed before - but I didn't give my tuppenceworth! I don't personnaly know how hard it is to give it up but I've watched some of my mates try......not a pretty sight!
Banning alcohol - now that's when the world would really give way beneath my feet! :D
The Scottish parliment has now passed the outlawing of smoking in pubs,private members clubs,eating establishments & all public enclosed spaces to take affect on 26 March 2006.What do u think about it.
ps I am an ex smoker stopped 10 years ago! :confused
People seem to have an inherant need to divide, to feel superior and to control.
The nation has been split into smokers and non smokers, the smokers have been made to feel they are second class citizens and they have been told where they can or can't smoke.
In a free country proprietors would have the choice of having a smoking or none smoking establishment, or both. People would have the informed choice of which sort of establishment they went to. This is not a free country and what's worse is that Holyrood
seems more intent on oppressing the people than Westminster did.
I have said this once and I have said it a million times, this ban is not about restricting people's freedom to choose, as that is already hindered by their addiction, it is about health, purely and simply. I find it hypocritical of smokers complaining that their freedom is hindered when their freedom to pack in the fags is hindered by the addictive affect of nicotine.
And weeboyagee, there is no direct proportionality to smoking and having a good craic, I have just been this afternoon to a dinner at Mackays hotel, about 30 people there, non smoked and a good craic was had by all. Your friends would not suffer as much packing in if they went to a pub and was free of someone blowing smoke in his direction for a laugh.
After all the teething problems that this legislation brings and the effect that it will have on our young people, we will be still sitting at our computers in 10 years time wondering why we didn't ban cigarrettes all together.
Think about this, before Columbus's trip to the New World, we already had smoke free inns which were full of good craic no doubt, now if you asked one of the serving wenches about whether it would be a good idea to fill the room with acrid, eye nippin' smoke that will give you a good chance of an early death. What do you think her answer would be? :roll:
I think it is a good idea. It hasn't stopped the drinkers or the craic in ireland why should it here? I don't go to pubs becuse I have asthma and smoke affects it badly - maybe i can enjoy a few nights out with the craig now!
I have said this once and I have said it a million times, this ban is not about restricting people's freedom to choose, as that is already hindered by their addiction, it is about health, purely and simply.
Then why didn't they legislate where it would do some good?
Heart disease is still the greatest killer, much of it caused by a bad diet. Why don't they prohibit eating in public places? Why don't they make junk food illegal and fine people who eat unhealthy food? Why not tax food to the hilt till no one can afford to eat any more?
They don't because everyone eats so they can't divide the population and the control freaks on one side dictate to those on the other side what they can or can't do. This isn't about health any more than the hunting with dogs bill was about foxes.
George Brims
01-Jul-05, 19:59
Much of heart disease is caused by bad diet, but much of it is also caused by SMOKING! Combine the two and you're in big trouble. Other countries (notably Norway) do intervene in the food side of health through their tax structure. They tax alcohol very heavily for example. IMNSHO, a heavy tax on fast food would be a good idea.
Fred, I strongly dis agree with your comment that "This isn't about health". Why can't people get the idea that sometimes governments do actually do things for the good of their people? That's what they're elected to do. Certainly they get it wrong sometimes but give them some credit.
Much of heart disease is caused by bad diet, but much of it is also caused by SMOKING! Combine the two and you're in big trouble. Other countries (notably Norway) do intervene in the food side of health through their tax structure. They tax alcohol very heavily for example. IMNSHO, a heavy tax on fast food would be a good idea.
At least smokers pay for the National Health service with the tax they pay which is a lot more than the eaters do.
[quote="George Brims"
Fred, I strongly dis agree with your comment that "This isn't about health". Why can't people get the idea that sometimes governments do actually do things for the good of their people? That's what they're elected to do. Certainly they get it wrong sometimes but give them some credit.[/quote]
So by the time they've made smoking, drinking and eating junk food illegal then they'll start banning anything that might be a bit risky, like sports or going out without your vest on in winter then pass a law that everyone has to do an hours exercise every morning.
Then there's the cars, how many journeys are really necessary? They polute the atmosphere, cause asthma, kill and maim people every day yet people still drive just for the fun of it. There would be a strong case for making the vast majority of car journrys illegal by your logic.
It isn't governments place to force everyone to be healthy, we elected MPs not nannies, we elect them to serve not to rule.
[Heart disease is still the greatest killer, much of it caused by a bad diet. Why don't they prohibit eating in public places? Why don't they make junk food illegal and fine people who eat unhealthy food? Why not tax food to the hilt till no one can afford to eat any more?.
Because we have to eat to live. We do not have to smoke to live - in fact if we don't smoke we are more likely to live.
But then it is a choice.
I do not chose to smoke, so why should i be forced to inhale some one elses second hand nicotine? At least bad diet only hurts the consumer, not those around him.
Because we have to eat to live. We do not have to smoke to live - in fact if we don't smoke we are more likely to live.
But then it is a choice.
I do not chose to smoke, so why should i be forced to inhale some one elses second hand nicotine? At least bad diet only hurts the consumer, not those around him.
But you arn't forced to go into the places where smoking has been banned, like specialist tobacco shops which have been included in the ban. I see no reason why pubs and hotels should not be able to have a smoking room or even a non smoking room but that isn't the law which has been passed, smoking has been banned in all public places. I'm all for freedom of choice and no one should be forced to inhale second hand smoke if they don't want to, the people who do want to should also have their freedom to choose.
George Brims
01-Jul-05, 23:01
Fred, you need to learn to work the "quote" facility better. I didn't say that bit about the NHS. (Do the tobacco taxes even cover a fraction of the costs to the NHS from preventable disease caused by tobacco? I doubt it but perhaps someone has the numbers?)
Don't preach to me about logic until you learn the meaning of the term "non sequitur" . In fact I'll tell you. It means "doesn't follow". Just because the government decides to legislate against one thing that kills people on a daily basis, it *doen't follow* that they're going to ban everything that's slightly risky.
well, here's my two cents on this subject.
i work in a bar. i don't smoke. but i think that the smoking ban is pretty much a recipe for disaster. are the government niaeve enough to think that banning smoking in public places is gonna "improve" the health of an unhealthy nation? i think not. you see, whats gonna happen now is an epidemic of the "closet alcoholic" yeah, you know, the ones that sit in the house all night and drink about 3 bottles of wine and think that its "ok"(compared to people who go to the pub and get told to go home by the barperson). people sit and drink in pubs, have a smoke and a laugh with their mates, but they know that at some stage, they gotta go home. drink at home and they will keep going all night. banning smoking in enclosed public spaces ain't gonna stop people doing it, nor is it gonna improve the health of the nation. its gonna ruin thousands of businesses throughout scotland. i mean, seriously, who wants to go to a pub with no customers?? i know i don't.
its a no win situation for the public really. i reckon that within 5 years, liver problems will rise and that people suffering from smoking related illness will continue to increase
what the government should of done was impose a minimum criteria on extraction and air conditioning.
cullbucket
02-Jul-05, 08:36
Rheghead - find myself agreeing with you again - seems to be happening more and more....
Jeid - I was in Ireland a couple of weeks ago and the pubs were hoaching, the smoking ban didn't seem to put people off going out on the town. There were a few folk nipping outside for a smoke but my pregnant wife was happy in the pub. Didn't come home smelling like an ashtray either. My mate told me that the landlords couldn't afford to allow smoking in bars due to potential lawsuits down the line.
I was listening to a debate on the radio a while ago between a doctor and a representative of the licensing trade. The licenser was strong on ventilation, AC etc. but the doctor just told him that (even proper) ventilation does not remove the invisible, odourless carciogens that are still in the atmosphere. The doctor also went on to say that most smokers want to stop, but the most common reason thay can't stop or have most problems stopping is when they go to the pub for a drink so the legislation can help people make the final step and quit.
If they don't want to quit they can still go outside, but thats not going to be so nice in a January Storm.
In 10 years time the pubs will be as busy as ever, less people will smoke, bar staff will be protected from second hand smoke and related health issues and we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
PS. I am a non-smoker (in case you didn't guess_
Well I have nothing against smokers and a lot of my friends smoke. I agree slightly with the ban as it is nice to go in to a pub with a no smoking area. But all the ban is going to do is increase the amount of smokers in doorways, bus stops etc... As adults we can choose not to go into these smoking places but when smokers are puffin in a huddle outside doorways they take that right away. You can't avoid the fumes when you walk past. I was at Raigmore last week with my child and we decided to catch a bus to the town for a whilie. It was raining but we had to stand outside the bus shelter and wait for the bus as it was like a kipper shed with the amount of smokers in it. We stood away but only to have another huddle light up beside us, they were all making the most o their fag as the bus is non-smoking. I get fed up of hearin how smokers should have the right to smoke but what about our right and innocent childrens rights not to inhale smokers fumes. My friends allways ask if it is allright to smoke in my house, and many choose to go outside, but they never smoke in front of my or their own children. A lot of that is to do with manners of course.
Fred, you need to learn to work the "quote" facility better. I didn't say that bit about the NHS. (Do the tobacco taxes even cover a fraction of the costs to the NHS from preventable disease caused by tobacco? I doubt it but perhaps someone has the numbers?).
The numbers arn't easy to come by. I can tell you that 80% of the cost of a packet of cigarets is tax, around £4 and one third of the population of Scotland smokes. That means someone smoking 20 a day pays £28 a week more taxes than a non smoker. In the UK as a whole tobacco products generated around 12 billion pounds in taxes in 2002 while the budget for the entire health service for Scotland was 5.8 billion for the year 2001-2002. The cost to the UK health service for coronary heart disease, the largest killer, was 1.73 billion in 1999.
So yes, they not only cover the cost of diseases caused by tobacco, they probably go a long way towards funding the entire health service.
Don't preach to me about logic until you learn the meaning of the term "non sequitur" . In fact I'll tell you. It means "doesn't follow". Just because the government decides to legislate against one thing that kills people on a daily basis, it *doen't follow* that they're going to ban everything that's slightly risky.
That's what people said to me when I pointed out that the hunting with dogs bill was just one class of people using the law to control the actions of another class and asked what would be next.
If you think the control freaks will stop here I feel you are going to be disapointed.
weeboyagee
04-Jul-05, 14:17
And weeboyagee, there is no direct proportionality to smoking and having a good craic....
Sorry pal, you missed what I was meaning
I wouldn't miss their craic for the world so it's my choice to join their company and inhale....
There is a difference to having a good craic wherever you are (smoke or no smoke) and choosing to be in that company. My choice would be (at the moment) to be in their company. I have tried to persuade them not to smoke. I wouldn't feel as though I've done my bit if I was holding a cord at their grave if ever smoking takes it's ultimate toll with them!
I don't mind there being a law to ban smoking in public places, but I think on this one, there is a right to be able to have a place that chooses to allow people who wish to smoke and drink to do so - and those who do not wish to do so need not enter the premises, this being their choice. Have I explained myself better? Head probably wasn't too clear from all the festivities at the time I wrote the last post! :)
I know I have a risk of an earlier demise by being in their company but I agree entirely with your last statement - ban cigarettes. People will not have a choice to smoke them or not then! :) Just don't widen the loop to include my uisge-beatha! :mad:
The numbers arn't easy to come by. I can tell you that 80% of the cost of a packet of cigarets is tax, around £4 and one third of the population of Scotland smokes. That means someone smoking 20 a day pays £28 a week more taxes than a non smoker. In the UK as a whole tobacco products generated around 12 billion pounds in taxes in 2002 while the budget for the entire health service for Scotland was 5.8 billion for the year 2001-2002. The cost to the UK health service for coronary heart disease, the largest killer, was 1.73 billion in 1999.
So yes, they not only cover the cost of diseases caused by tobacco, they probably go a long way towards funding the entire health service.
That's what people said to me when I pointed out that the hunting with dogs bill was just one class of people using the law to control the actions of another class and asked what would be next.
If you think the control freaks will stop here I feel you are going to be disapointed.
Fred
its a well documented fact the 53% of all cigarettes smoked in the UK are "Bootleg" and are even counterfeit, so where are the taxes on them and they do not contribute to the NHS, in fact I would say they are a major cause to all the lung related diseases in the UK
Fred
its a well documented fact the 53% of all cigarettes smoked in the UK are "Bootleg" and are even counterfeit, so where are the taxes on them and they do not contribute to the NHS, in fact I would say they are a major cause to all the lung related diseases in the UK
It's a well doccumented fact that 53% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Smokers still contribute over 12 billion a year to the economy which must go a long way towards paying for the entire health service.
[quote="fred
It's a well doccumented fact that 53% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Smokers still contribute over 12 billion a year to the economy which must go a long way towards paying for the entire health service.[/quote]
No mention of the BOOTLEG fags fred, they are causing more damage to the NHS and small businesses in the UK.
The purchase of BOOTLEG goods be what they may, DVD's, CD Roms', COMPUTER GAMES, FOOTIE STRIPS, FAGS, BOOZE, the list is endless, all goes into the pocket of Organised crime, hows does that equate to your economy figures or stasticis, it is all lining the pockets of the professional crims...not going into the exchequer.
So stop whinging and pay the full price.....or the alternative...STOP smoking
No mention of the BOOTLEG fags fred, they are causing more damage to the NHS and small businesses in the UK.
You keep mentioning them, don't know why, they are completely irrelevant to the statement I made that smokers contribute over 12 billion pounds to the economy in taxes. I can only think that you don't have any sensible arguments.
The purchase of BOOTLEG goods be what they may, DVD's, CD Roms', COMPUTER GAMES, FOOTIE STRIPS, FAGS, BOOZE, the list is endless, all goes into the pocket of Organised crime, hows does that equate to your economy figures or stasticis, it is all lining the pockets of the professional crims...not going into the exchequer.
It doesn't equate at all, I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
So stop whinging and pay the full price.....or the alternative...STOP smoking
I think the real problem is that there are too many people in the country who enjoy telling others what to do. Too many control freaks.
Fred asks " It doesn't equate at all, I don't know why you keep bringing it up. "
Plain answer Fred I was a Officer of HM Customs & Excise for the last 33 years, I spent many hours of my time chasing and catching Bootleggers,not just because they were selling cheap counterfeit fags to Joe Public, but because I believe that they were responsible for the demise of many a wee Licenced Grocer and Tobacconist and helping to put them out of business.
The loss of the Revenue to HM Treasury is why the great and good Gordon Brown had to put up the duty of cigarettes.
The loss of cigarette duty puts a strain on the funding to the NHS, which in turn makes the Ministers on the Scottish Parliament (who we elected by the way) look to other means to ease funding to the NHS sic the ban on smoking in anywhere serving food,
so if you think that the busybodies are sticking their noses into your affairs, just think of us NON smokers who now have a voice and we have rights also, we want to have a pint in the pub without getting smoke up our noses.
Next time you are in a pup count the number of non smokers and I think you will see that we are now the Majority...and we are not going to be SILENT!!!!!!!
Fred asks " It doesn't equate at all, I don't know why you keep bringing it up. "
Plain answer Fred I was a Officer of HM Customs & Excise for the last 33 years, I spent many hours of my time chasing and catching Bootleggers,not just because they were selling cheap counterfeit fags to Joe Public, but because I believe that they were responsible for the demise of many a wee Licenced Grocer and Tobacconist and helping to put them out of business.
That does nothing to alter the fact that smokers contribute 12 billion a year to the economy which must go a long way towards financing the entire health service.
The junk food eaters are probably as great a drain on the health service with all the related diseases, heart disease for one and there is a huge increase in diabetes yet there isn't even VAT on food.
Anyone supporting a smoking ban on health grounds has their priorities all wrong.
Anyone supporting a smoking ban on health grounds has their priorities all wrong.
You are not consistent in your arguement. There is a clear link between passive smoking and smoking and health.
However the main thrust of your arguement on the financial imlications is less clear.
There was a study not so many years ago that concluded that smoking was not a drain on the NHS. But there were omissions from the calculations from the social cost. It was a study that incorperated a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' hence now the urban myth that smokers are funding the NHS.
I still maintain that the NHS and the country FTM would be better off without the social cost/ tax benefit of smoking.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
Anyone supporting a smoking ban on health grounds has their priorities all wrong.
You are not consistent in your arguement. There is a clear link between passive smoking and smoking and health.
No doubt there is a link but how much of a link is highly debatable.
However the main thrust of your arguement on the financial imlications is less clear.
There was a study not so many years ago that concluded that smoking was not a drain on the NHS. But there were omissions from the calculations from the social cost. It was a study that incorperated a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' hence now the urban myth that smokers are funding the NHS.
I still maintain that the NHS and the country FTM would be better off without the social cost/ tax benefit of smoking.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
That site, despite being a propoganda site for the control freaks still gives the income from tobacco as 10.5 billion and the cost of smoking related illnesses as 1.6 billion.
As for the rest we could go on juggling the figures all day, I could include the income tax paid by tobacconists and a whole load of other things and present as false a figure as they have.
Interesting that they put the amount of bootleg tobacco at between 2% and 10% not the well doccumented fact of 53% thrown out here.
No, this law isn't about passive smoking, if it was then all that would be necessary would be a law that estabilishments, such as pubs, which allow smoking must have a sign on the door stating that they allow smoking and then let the non smokers decide for themselves if they want to go in or not. This law is another nail in the coffin of civil liberty and one step closer to a totalitarian state where the drones must abandon all freedom of choice.
Let's take a look at the aims of the Labour government when they came into power.
The abolition of the House of Lords.
The abolition of the Lord Chancellors Office.
The abolition of the right to trial by jury.
The introduction of house arrest.
The introduction of a central database containing education, medical and social records
of every child under 18, including data on their parents.
The introduction of identity cards linked to a central database.
The fitting of a satelite tracking device to every motor vehicle in Britain.
Are you starting to see a pattern emerging here?
During WW2 while overseas I picked up the habit of smoking cigarets because they were free - they cost me nothing. I guess I did that because most everyone else did the same thing because they were free. When I returned home I discovered that I would have to pay for a habit that I did not enjoy so I quit smoking those sticks. Many years later I see many my age of 80 years, older and younger, suffering from lung cancer caused by smoking throughout the years. I believe I gained a few more years of good health added to my life due to my quitting smoking.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
No, this law isn't about passive smoking, if it was then all that would be necessary would be a law that estabilishments, such as pubs, which allow smoking must have a sign on the door stating that they allow smoking and then let the non smokers decide for themselves if they want to go in or not. This law is another nail in the coffin of civil liberty and one step closer to a totalitarian state where the drones must abandon all freedom of choice.
Let's take a look at the aims of the Labour government when they came into power.
The abolition of the House of Lords.
The abolition of the Lord Chancellors Office.
The abolition of the right to trial by jury.
The introduction of house arrest.
The introduction of a central database containing education, medical and social records
of every child under 18, including data on their parents.
The introduction of identity cards linked to a central database.
The fitting of a satelite tracking device to every motor vehicle in Britain.
Are you starting to see a pattern emerging here?
All the above 'aims' obviously empower the State at the expense of Civil Liberties. But I find it very hard to see how a Smoking ban will empower the State at the expense of your civil liberty to smoke :confused ?!
Fred, you already agree that it is not for financial reasons that the Government want to stub out smoking (short of an outright ban on possession). The Government is not getting any hold or empowerment over this legislation so what is the real reason?
Go on Fred, put your personal addiction to one side and think impartially.
This Executive is exercising their duty of care over those that can't and won't think for themselves and for those around them.
Fred, you already agree that it is not for financial reasons that the Government want to stub out smoking (short of an outright ban on possession). The Government is not getting any hold or empowerment over this legislation so what is the real reason?
Go on Fred, put your personal addiction to one side and think impartially.
This Executive is exercising their duty of care over those that can't and won't think for themselves and for those around them.
So Golach isn't the only one who resorts to argumentum ad hominem when the going gets tough.
The government knows damned well this won't stop anyone smoking, they won't lose a penny. People have faced restrictions on where they can smoke for years, at work, cinemas, trains but they still smoke. People have faced extortionate taxation for years but they still smoke. This law isn't intended to stop anyone smoking, it's just about control. One section of society telling another section what they can and can't do.
argumentum ad hominem?
non sequitturs?
it's a real education on this 'ere forum.
Though I don't think I fulfilled the definition of 'argumentum ad hominem', I was just giving you an insight that your addiction might possibly be ruling your logic, take the addiction away then we might get the real fred's views on here?
nice try but no cigar, though I must remember 'argumentum ad hominem' for future reference :roll:
"argumentum ad hominem" !!!
oh fred I am so unworthy of your praise, my rebutall of your arguments and my use of my principles make my "ruse de guerre" for "summum bonum"
argumentum ad hominem?
non sequitturs?
it's a real education on this 'ere forum.
Though I don't think I fulfilled the definition of 'argumentum ad hominem', I was just giving you an insight that your addiction might possibly be ruling your logic, take the addiction away then we might get the real fred's views on here?
My views on this are no different to my views on the hunting with dogs bill, no different to my views on the identity card bill, no different to my views on the Iraq war.
Did you see the events at Gleneagles on the news? The police swarming like giant black ants to control the mass of young people who are angry at what the world has become. But the mass has no voice, they have been dubbed "Anarchists" so their views can be discounted. Well I'm an Anarchist too though I don't throw rocks at policemen, to me anarchy means something different. I'm an anarchist when I go to the checkout at a supermarket and I stand at the back of the queue not push to the front, there is no law to make me, no one standing there with a big stick to keep me in line but I do it anyway and so does everyone else. I am an anarchist when I drive down a country road, if there is a car coming the other way and I reach a passing place first I stop and flash the other driver on, there is no law to make me, no one to enforce the law if there was but I do it anyway and the system works, anarchy works.
Laws are neccessary in any society, even anarchist ones, neccessary to protect the weak from the strong, the rich from the poor and the meek from the ruthless but when the law is used to enable classes to carve out their territories then the law is being abused.
Those are my views, you can listen to them or think of an excuse to ignore them as you like.
Fred nosce te ipsum, and I am exercising my democratic right to say I think that you are non compus mentis
[ I'm an anarchist when I go to the checkout at a supermarket and I stand at the back of the queue not push to the front, there is no law to make me, no one standing there with a big stick to keep me in line but I do it anyway and so does everyone else. I am an anarchist when I drive down a country road, if there is a car coming the other way and I reach a passing place first I stop and flash the other driver on, there is no law to make me, no one to enforce the law if there was but I do it anyway and the system works, anarchy works..
I thought that was called good manners not anarchy!
Well just to put some more fuel on the fire, im a non smoker but i think the ban is disgraceful.
It is up to the individual or the pub/club owner what they should do. Businesses will now stuggle to cope and it wont stop a smoker, if a smoker fancies a fag then he/she will walk that little bit further to do so.
And i dont agree its about health its about the majority.
Why do you think the government keeps taxing fags, to bulge the coffers more and that is the only reason.
Businesses will now stuggle to cope
This was not the experience of Ireland after a ban was brought in there. My understanding was that trade in pubs actually increased.
and it wont stop a smoker, if a smoker fancies a fag then he/she will walk that little bit further to do so.
Suits me.
And i dont agree its about health its about the majority.
You are aware of the effects of passive smoking... aren't you?
Oh, Drutt, Never thought I would see the day, but I'm actually with you on this one.
During WW2 while overseas I picked up the habit of smoking cigarets because they were free - they cost me nothing. I guess I did that because most everyone else did the same thing because they were free. When I returned home I discovered that I would have to pay for a habit that I did not enjoy so I quit smoking those sticks. Many years later I see many my age of 80 years, older and younger, suffering from lung cancer caused by smoking throughout the years. I believe I gained a few more years of good health added to my life due to my quitting smoking.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
And long may you keep smiling and moaning :lol:
This Executive is exercising their duty of care over those that can't and won't think for themselves and for those around them.[/quote]
I pesonally dont care if people cant think about smoking for themselves but others yes.
Smoke as much as you want but keep it all to yourselfs, just hope you dont have kids to watch you slowly die by your own hands.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.