TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:28:12 +0100, charles
wrote:

A theatrical smoke machine is not producing tobacco smoke. They will
continue to be permitted after the smoking ban comes into force. You might
also like to know that one of the exemptions to the ban allows a performer
to smoke for artistic integrety reasons.

Theatrical smoke machines may not be producing tobacco smoke, but it's
still unnatural to be breathing it and very unpleasant to be forced to
breathe it in an enclosed space for an entire working day of 8-10
hours, and I think we did the right thing to refuse. And I have also
been in the situation where we are obliged to work in a pub or
restaurant while it is open to the public and customers are smoking.

Having held my father's hand as he took his last gasp after a painful
year-long decline thanks to asbestos-related lung cancer from
breathing the fibres about 40 years earlier, I fully support anything
that prevents anyone from being forced to breathe any unnatural
substance. We have to breathe constantly from the moment we're born
till the moment we die, and if something is in the air around us we
can't refuse it in the same way as we could refuse something to eat,
drink, wear or handle, so the only protection against potentially
harmful airborne substances is to make sure they're not released into
the air in public places.

Rod.

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
Having held my father's hand as he took his last gasp after a painful
year-long decline thanks to asbestos-related lung cancer from
breathing the fibres about 40 years earlier, I fully support anything
that prevents anyone from being forced to breathe any unnatural
substance. We have to breathe constantly from the moment we're born
till the moment we die, and if something is in the air around us we
can't refuse it in the same way as we could refuse something to eat,
drink, wear or handle, so the only protection against potentially
harmful airborne substances is to make sure they're not released into
the air in public places.

This is a compelling argument and would, I think, be a fitting point at
which to close this discussion.

Bill

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:13:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
I've not read anyone here who doesn't respect the views of non smokers
to live and work in a smoke free environment. But that is a different
matter from banning it totally from all pubs and clubs, etc.

No it's not. These are workplaces for some - that's the whole point.

Just a convenient excuse for the anti-smoking brigade. I'll bet they don't
give a fig for other worker's rights.

Give 'em time. Once smoking is licked they'll turn their attention
somewhere else.

--
Z

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:38:13 GMT, "Turkey Cough"
wrote:


"Zathras" wrote in message
.. .

But it entirely depends on the definition of *poor*. To me,*poor* is
when you have kids!

Rubbish you get paid child benefit

So that meager amount is all that poor people need to extricate
themselves from poverty is it? Maybe if I have lots of kids I'll be
rich! I'll speak to the wife tonight about shagging our way to a
fortune.

If these taxes are fair then a 400% income tax could also be considered
unfair.
If can't afford to payitjustake a lower paid job.

Many, e.g. pensioners, have very few options available to them.

And an unfair tax the council tax not related to income.

Indeed. However, the inflation busting rises when pensioners were not
getting compensatory pension rises was a very poor show from a
(supposedly) Socialist government.

In any case, in a world economy the super rich would just move to
lower tax economies or would be able to afford to find ways of
avoiding the tax.

SO let the go, willkeep a lid on house prices.
Any income earmed her will be fully taxed.

That's what happens now and there's no sign of a lid on house prices
where I am.

How much inheritance tax was paid on the Queen
Mother's estate?

Close loop holes

Indeed. However, you then have to pay Accountants/Lawyers even more
money to find and action the tougher remaining loop holes. There will
always be loopholes and I'd prefer if they were available to all, not
just the wealthier ones that can afford to take advantage.

--
Z

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:13:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Zathras wrote:
I've not read anyone here who doesn't respect the views of non
smokers to live and work in a smoke free environment. But that is a
different matter from banning it totally from all pubs and clubs,
etc.

No it's not. These are workplaces for some - that's the whole point.

Just a convenient excuse for the anti-smoking brigade. I'll bet they
don't give a fig for other worker's rights.

Give 'em time. Once smoking is licked they'll turn their attention
somewhere else.

Incidentally - if it's all about the health of workers, why will smoking
still be allowed in prisons and some hospitals? Don't warders and nurses
matter?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

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

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Apr 12, 5:26 pm, "DAB is the Betamax of digital radio"
[email protected] wrote:
My dad died of lung cancer, and he didn't smoke, and he didn't go to the pub
much. So don't fking tell me that Roy Castle definitely died of passive
smoking, okay?

But I bet you smoked round him, didn't you, because it's fine to do
that...