TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Alan wrote:
In message , DAB is the
Betamax of digital radio wrote

This full smoking ban only got through due to the health Nazis
trying to make the case that a partial ban would result in bar staff
dying.

Surely a Nazis is one who enjoys gassing people - a smoker!?


I've said I'm happy for non-smokers to get non-smoking pubs, and I've made
it perfectly clear what I'm not happy about. The only Nazis here are the
non-smokers who think that it's fair that ALL pubs should be non-smoking
even though they have no intention of entering a smoking pub ever again (if
there were the choice of course, which there won't be).


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:30:18 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:13 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:



I'm sure you won't lose sleep over it, but I think those supporting
the full ban should stop and consider why they're supporting a full
ban when they wouldn't have had to set foot in another smoking pub
ever again.

Presumably, you're advocating some lesser measures to make that
situation come about. All very interesting, but I can't see anything
being done other than the ban as discussed,


I'm not saying anything will change, Einstein. The Nazis have got their full
ban.

Weyhey! the N word so soon! I didn't realize you'd give up on reasoned
argument so quickly. It's a bit disappointing really.



and when it comes into
force, the situation will improve vastly over the present one.


For YOU it may be vastly improved, but it will be vastly worse for smokers,
not that you care about them, because you're a Nazi.

Not all smokers. Only the amazingly inconsiderate ones who forced
everyone in the general area to breathe their smoke, either because
they kidded themselves that no-one minded, or they just couldn't give
a toss.



And if we're going to ban activities that carry some risk,

Where on earth did that come from? No-one is banning smoking. Smokers
will still have the right to stuff their lungs full of ****e with gay
abandon - as long as they avoid forcing their smoke into others' lungs
as some people believe they're entitled to do at the moment.


This full smoking ban only got through due to the health Nazis trying to
make the case that a partial ban would result in bar staff dying.

There's that word again. Your credibility is waning fast...


The risk of dying from passive smoking is tiny, and a lot of people dispute
the supposed evidence that it even causes any deaths.

So translating then, even in the most biased views that you can find,
there is still a risk, yet you're still whining about having the
"right" to foist that risk on other people revoked.


But obviously AIDS
kills people, and you can get AIDS from having unprotected sex if your
partner has been playing away from home - hence why unprotected sex should
be banned for people advocating the full ban on smoking in pubs.

Repeating it with the same glaring error as before won't make it any
more correct, I'm afraid.


then I propose
that all non-smokers proposing this full ban should be banned from
having unprotected sex, as there's a possibility that their partner
in sexual activies might have AIDS. Not to do so would be
hypocritical.

For a start, it's not all about risk. The basic disgusting nature of
it is important too, but since you're on about risk...


The reason the bill was passed was due to the risk of passive smoking - try
passing a bill through parliament because people were complaining about the
smell of cigarettes and see how far it'd get...

The passive smoking risk alone is a perfectly valid reason for the
bill to be passed, no matter how deeply in denial about it you are.
The general disgustingness of it is a major reason why it has so much
popular support.


It's not about risk to the smoker. It's about smokers forcing other
people around them to take the risk along with them.


Non-smokers would never be forced to enter a smoking pub.

Dream on. Non-smoking pubs are few and far between. Market forces just
do not work on this problem.

Thus your argument falls flat on its face.

So you actually imagine that all the non-smokers you find in pubs are
perfectly happy to have their lungs impregnated with crap, and their
clothes smelling like a smoker's cough the following morning do you?

Bar staff don't have a gun pointed at their head
forcing them to work behind a bar in a smoking pub,

But since the number of non-smoking pubs nothing-like reflects the
number of non-smokers, any bar-staff who don't want to spend their
working life immersed in a sea of noxious substances find their
employment opportunities severely restricted.

History is littered with industries where the workforce was forced to
take far worse health risks than passive smoking, but those industries
had no trouble finding workers. Workers died in droves, but it was all
OK because "staff don't have a gun pointed at their head..."

so there's actually no
good reason to ban smoking from all pubs other than the health Nazis want it
to be so.

Maybe you have some far better solution. Maybe I'd agree with you that
your master plan is better than the ban but, like we've both observed,
the ban is what's going to happen, so there's no point bleating about
it now.
Perhaps if smokers had been a little more considerate of the wishes of
the rest of the population, the ban would't have achieved so much
support.



If you want to
modify your analogy so that it actually works, then they should ban
raping people without using protection. Perhaps we should check, but
I'm fairly certain that's already illegal.


For your deeply offensive analogy to work the person being raped would have
the opportunity to not be raped you moron.

Please remember that it wasn't my analogy. Merely your one corrected.


I object most strongly to being linked with rapists just because I want to
have a cig with a pint if I so choose without some Nazi stopping me from
doing so even though the Nazi would have the choice to only drink in pubs
with fellow Nazis party members.


So, that's seven Nazis and a moron then. For someone so offensive, you
certainly do take offence easily don't you? I should have a couple of
fags if I were you - calm your nerves a bit.

Anyway, us Nazis aren't so bad you know. Some of our gas chambers even
had "No Zyklon B" ends. They were separated from the rest of the
chamber by an almost gas-tight barrier constructed out of a
fruit-machine and two slightly tacky bar-stools.

Cheers,

Colin.

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

In message , DAB is the Betamax of
digital radio wrote
Alan wrote:
In message , DAB is the
Betamax of digital radio wrote

This full smoking ban only got through due to the health Nazis
trying to make the case that a partial ban would result in bar staff
dying.

Surely a Nazis is one who enjoys gassing people - a smoker!?


I've said I'm happy for non-smokers to get non-smoking pubs, and I've made
it perfectly clear what I'm not happy about. The only Nazis here are the
non-smokers who think that it's fair that ALL pubs should be non-smoking
even though they have no intention of entering a smoking pub ever again (if
there were the choice of course, which there won't be).


Many pubs have had no smoking at the bar for a considerable time.
unfortunately smokers couldn't care a **** and haven't stopped their
smoke entering these areas. Perhaps if smokers had been more considerate
in the past their wouldn't have been a need for the legislation.


--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:46:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

most smokers tend to be in total denial - they refuse to accept that
they are drug addicts. as such they should be glad they can indulge
their habit anywhere - they shouldnt be able to rub our noses in it
anywhere.

The logical thing then would be to ban alcohol - considering just
how many are addicted to that.

It's been tried. It didn't work. Instead of alcohol being supplied
through legal trade it just continued to be supplied through criminal
gangs instead. Lots of people got killed. Not a good idea.

It makes me wonder how many of the alleged bad effects the drugs that
are currently illegal can really be blamed on the drugs themselves.

And it's one of the most dangerous recreational
drugs available. But this government takes a very different view on
that - relaxing the supply rules to the point where there might as
well be none. And although other's smoke may be unpleasant, it's
nothing compared to the behaviour of many drunks.

The dangers are different. I could drink alcohol till I fell over and
be no danger whatsoever to anyone, but if one person lights one
cigarette in an indoor space, nobody has any choice but to breathe it.

Rod.

Indeed. Plus the fact that regular drinking in moderation doesn't
particularly harm you - many medical experts say it's actually good for you
(especially red wine)!

Smoking, on the other hand, is highly addictive and regular smoking will
undoubtedly cause you harm.

Also, how many of us have actually been harmed by people who have drunk
excessively?

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:30:18 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:13 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:



I'm sure you won't lose sleep over it, but I think those supporting
the full ban should stop and consider why they're supporting a full
ban when they wouldn't have had to set foot in another smoking pub
ever again.

Presumably, you're advocating some lesser measures to make that
situation come about. All very interesting, but I can't see anything
being done other than the ban as discussed,


I'm not saying anything will change, Einstein. The Nazis have got
their full ban.

Weyhey! the N word so soon! I didn't realize you'd give up on reasoned
argument so quickly. It's a bit disappointing really.


Reasoned argument? They're going to ban smoking from ALL pubs. There is
therefore no room for reasoned argument here, because they've just taken a
drastic step and screw what the smokers think.

They are Nazis, and all those who support the full ban are Nazis.


and when it comes into
force, the situation will improve vastly over the present one.


For YOU it may be vastly improved, but it will be vastly worse for
smokers, not that you care about them, because you're a Nazi.

Not all smokers. Only the amazingly inconsiderate ones who forced
everyone in the general area to breathe their smoke, either because
they kidded themselves that no-one minded, or they just couldn't give
a toss.


You're in favour of smoking being banned in ALL pubs, even the ones that you
don't intend to enter. Therefore, do NOT lecture me about being
inconsiderate.


And if we're going to ban activities that carry some risk,

Where on earth did that come from? No-one is banning smoking.
Smokers will still have the right to stuff their lungs full of
****e with gay abandon - as long as they avoid forcing their smoke
into others' lungs as some people believe they're entitled to do at
the moment.


This full smoking ban only got through due to the health Nazis
trying to make the case that a partial ban would result in bar staff
dying.

There's that word again. Your credibility is waning fast...


I couldn't care less whether you think I'm credible or not.


The risk of dying from passive smoking is tiny, and a lot of people
dispute the supposed evidence that it even causes any deaths.

So translating then, even in the most biased views that you can find,
there is still a risk, yet you're still whining about having the
"right" to foist that risk on other people revoked.


What I want is so incredibly simple that even someone as stupid as you can
understand it. It goes as follows:

I want the ability to smoke in a pub. I don't want to smoke in all pubs. I
just want to be able to smoke in some of them. It's called having a choice,
and not be dictated to by Nazis.



But obviously AIDS
kills people, and you can get AIDS from having unprotected sex if
your partner has been playing away from home - hence why unprotected
sex should be banned for people advocating the full ban on smoking
in pubs.

Repeating it with the same glaring error as before won't make it any
more correct, I'm afraid.


The simple point I was making was that there's an element of risk involved
with ****loads of things that people willingly do. People like yourself make
out that working in a pub is some extremely dangerous acitivity, and yet
people willingly work behind bars in pubs for low wages and pubs up and down
the country are full every weekend.


then I propose
that all non-smokers proposing this full ban should be banned from
having unprotected sex, as there's a possibility that their partner
in sexual activies might have AIDS. Not to do so would be
hypocritical.

For a start, it's not all about risk. The basic disgusting nature of
it is important too, but since you're on about risk...


The reason the bill was passed was due to the risk of passive
smoking - try passing a bill through parliament because people were
complaining about the smell of cigarettes and see how far it'd get...

The passive smoking risk alone is a perfectly valid reason for the
bill to be passed, no matter how deeply in denial about it you are.
The general disgustingness of it is a major reason why it has so much
popular support.


It's popular among smokers, and it's unpopular with smokers, you dumb ass.


It's not about risk to the smoker. It's about smokers forcing other
people around them to take the risk along with them.


Non-smokers would never be forced to enter a smoking pub.

Dream on. Non-smoking pubs are few and far between. Market forces just
do not work on this problem.


Where did I say anything about market forces? I didn't.


Thus your argument falls flat on its face.

So you actually imagine that all the non-smokers you find in pubs are
perfectly happy to have their lungs impregnated with crap, and their
clothes smelling like a smoker's cough the following morning do you?


See above - if it were as risky as you're implying then people wouldn't go
in pubs today, and yet they do every weekend in their millions.


Bar staff don't have a gun pointed at their head
forcing them to work behind a bar in a smoking pub,

But since the number of non-smoking pubs nothing-like reflects the
number of non-smokers, any bar-staff who don't want to spend their
working life immersed in a sea of noxious substances find their
employment opportunities severely restricted.


There are thouands of other professions than working behind a bar, if you
hadn't noticed, so trying to suggest that this would lead to bar-staff's
"employment opportunities [being] severely restricted" shows that you just
don't have a credible argument.


History is littered with industries where the workforce was forced to
take far worse health risks than passive smoking, but those industries
had no trouble finding workers. Workers died in droves, but it was all
OK because "staff don't have a gun pointed at their head..."


By your logic any job that carries a "risk" of dying as a result should be
banned. How many jobs would there be left if we went down that road? You
couldn't have any driving jobs, because driving carries the risk of dying in
a car crash, and so on.


so there's actually no
good reason to ban smoking from all pubs other than the health Nazis
want it to be so.

Maybe you have some far better solution. Maybe I'd agree with you that
your master plan is better than the ban but, like we've both observed,
the ban is what's going to happen, so there's no point bleating about
it now.


No, I won't accept the ban, because it is unjustifiable.


Perhaps if smokers had been a little more considerate of the wishes of
the rest of the population,


That really shows your lack of intelligence. You're implying that smokers
shouldn't have smoked in pubs - that's the only possible implication of what
you've just said, surely? That's an impossible situation to come about when
pubs have always been places where people can smoke, and it would require
every since smoker not to smoke forever in the pub.

I've seen this argument put forward before, and I really do think that
anybody putting it forward has to be extremely dense.


the ban would't have achieved so much
support.


So much support? All I see is some non-smokers supporting the ban, but some
other non-smokers think it's an infringement of civil liberties of smokers.



If you want to
modify your analogy so that it actually works, then they should ban
raping people without using protection. Perhaps we should check, but
I'm fairly certain that's already illegal.


For your deeply offensive analogy to work the person being raped
would have the opportunity to not be raped you moron.

Please remember that it wasn't my analogy. Merely your one corrected.


Where did I bring rapists into an issue of whether smokers should be able to
smoke in pubs or not? I didn't.


I object most strongly to being linked with rapists just because I
want to have a cig with a pint if I so choose without some Nazi
stopping me from doing so even though the Nazi would have the choice
to only drink in pubs with fellow Nazis party members.


So, that's seven Nazis and a moron then. For someone so offensive, you
certainly do take offence easily don't you? I should have a couple of
fags if I were you - calm your nerves a bit.

Anyway, us Nazis aren't so bad you know. Some of our gas chambers even
had "No Zyklon B" ends. They were separated from the rest of the
chamber by an almost gas-tight barrier constructed out of a
fruit-machine and two slightly tacky bar-stools.


Very funny - it's easy to make light on a subject when you're getting
exactly what you want at the expense of 25% of the adult population.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Alan wrote:
In message , DAB is the Betamax
of digital radio wrote
Alan wrote:
In message , DAB is the
Betamax of digital radio wrote

This full smoking ban only got through due to the health Nazis
trying to make the case that a partial ban would result in bar
staff dying.

Surely a Nazis is one who enjoys gassing people - a smoker!?


I've said I'm happy for non-smokers to get non-smoking pubs, and
I've made it perfectly clear what I'm not happy about. The only
Nazis here are the non-smokers who think that it's fair that ALL
pubs should be non-smoking even though they have no intention of
entering a smoking pub ever again (if there were the choice of
course, which there won't be).

Many pubs have had no smoking at the bar for a considerable time.
unfortunately smokers couldn't care a **** and haven't stopped their
smoke entering these areas. Perhaps if smokers had been more
considerate in the past their wouldn't have been a need for the
legislation.


Don't lecture me about being inconsiderate when you're supporting a total
ban on smoking in all pubs when you wouldn't ever have to enter another
smoking pub again in your life.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

DannyT wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:46:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

most smokers tend to be in total denial - they refuse to accept
that they are drug addicts. as such they should be glad they can
indulge their habit anywhere - they shouldnt be able to rub our
noses in it anywhere.

The logical thing then would be to ban alcohol - considering just
how many are addicted to that.

It's been tried. It didn't work. Instead of alcohol being supplied
through legal trade it just continued to be supplied through criminal
gangs instead. Lots of people got killed. Not a good idea.

It makes me wonder how many of the alleged bad effects the drugs that
are currently illegal can really be blamed on the drugs themselves.

And it's one of the most dangerous recreational
drugs available. But this government takes a very different view on
that - relaxing the supply rules to the point where there might as
well be none. And although other's smoke may be unpleasant, it's
nothing compared to the behaviour of many drunks.

The dangers are different. I could drink alcohol till I fell over and
be no danger whatsoever to anyone, but if one person lights one
cigarette in an indoor space, nobody has any choice but to breathe
it. Rod.

Indeed. Plus the fact that regular drinking in moderation doesn't
particularly harm you - many medical experts say it's actually good
for you (especially red wine)!

Smoking, on the other hand, is highly addictive and regular smoking
will undoubtedly cause you harm.

Also, how many of us have actually been harmed by people who have
drunk excessively?


So drunken people don't start fights now?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:59:27 GMT, "DannyT"
wrote:

Plus the fact that regular drinking in moderation doesn't
particularly harm you - many medical experts say it's actually good for you

Indeed.

(especially red wine)!

Nope. What happened here is that the kind of toff that supps red wine,
generally, has a much better diet and lifestyle than a beer swigging
commoner. Somebody (probably related to red wine sales) jumped on the
statistics, added one and one and came up with three. Quality
journalists did the rest and red wine became better for you than any
other alcohol! Funny, the day after, how my head always seemed to
disagree with that assertion no matter how much of the health-giving
elixir I drunk. :-(

I can remember when *Guinness was good for you* too..not any other
Irish stout.

--
Z

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:05:18 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

Alan wrote:
In message , DAB is the Betamax
of digital radio wrote


I'm sorry, haven't you understood the difficult concept of having
smoking and non-smoking pubs where smokers go to smoking pubs and
non-smokers go to non-smoking pubs?

If you were working for an employer in an industrial process that
produced as much smoke as found in many pubs your employer would be
forced to provide protective clothing and respirators.


Could you provide some references to back up that assertion please?

There's plenty of evidence out there (and increasing numbers of court
judgements) that cigarette smoke is bad for you when inhaled. This
actually causes a problem for employers (of, say, bar staff) under
existing health and safety legislation. Workplace smoking bans appear
to be being implemented as a simple clarification of the developing
legal landscape - hence the surprising ease with which they were
implemented in Scotland.

It's surprising how few employers want to be in court facing charges
of attempting to, or deliberately, injuring (or killing) their
employees. It would be interesting to know to what extent an
employer's insurance would cover such deliberate negligence (in the
future)?

--
Z

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

In article ,
DannyT wrote:
The dangers are different. I could drink alcohol till I fell over and
be no danger whatsoever to anyone, but if one person lights one
cigarette in an indoor space, nobody has any choice but to breathe it.

Rod.

Indeed. Plus the fact that regular drinking in moderation doesn't
particularly harm you - many medical experts say it's actually good for
you (especially red wine)!

Indeed. You only have a drink problem if you drink more than your doctor.
Of course everyone knows you can't get addicted if stick to wine or beer.
Oh no.

Smoking, on the other hand, is highly addictive and regular smoking will
undoubtedly cause you harm.

You think you can't get addicted to alcohol?

Also, how many of us have actually been harmed by people who have drunk
excessively?

The thousands killed by drunk drivers? Wives beaten up by drunken
husbands? Etc etc times a hundred.

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.