TOT Smoking Ban 2007

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Turkey Cough wrote:
You miss the fact that without this sort of society drug addicts would
simply die as they can't support themselves.

Eh? Rubbish, drug addicts have few needs apart from a few leaves off the
trees without extortionate taxation they could live very comfortable
and happilly

On state handouts. Which come from taxation.

Stick a drug addict on a fertile desert island with an unlimited supply of
his drug of choice and see just how long he lasts.

Probally a lot longer than you. Drugs don't prevent you from farming
fishiing or hunting or infact any kind of work and people who suggest
are idiotic.
May can carry out far mor advanced activitites such as filling in
benefit forms and having the irintelligentce to claim for their dog too.



--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:55:54 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

Some pubs in working class areas will go to the wall,

Utter nonsense (again). The smokers in Scotland and Ireland that I've
seen do appear fit enough to get off their seats (leaving their pints
as placeholders) and go out of the Pub door for a quick puff then back
in. There are other reasons men go to pubs than just to smoke. Married
with kids are two for starters..

and these were pubs where most of the regulars smoke, and cnuts like you would never have set
foot in one.

That doesn't actually change much. Now the smokers just do it in
shorter bursts outside the door. I mean, how difficult is that? Among
the smokers I know this is really not a big issue at all and many Pubs
now have outside seating and drinking areas (on Glasgow pavements
too). Add in some handy global warming and it's quite nice really.

This issue really shows how incredibly selfish some people can be.

Yeah..how selfish were the smokers that killed Roy Castle?

--
Z

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:59:36 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

God albleedingmighty. How many times do I have to say this before
people actually understand it? I am in favour of the compromise
solution that was going to become the law, where there would be BOTH
smoking and non-smoking pubs so that smokers could go to smoking
pubs and non-smokers could go to non-smoking pubs.

It also seems to need reiterating a few times that the mere
*existence* of smoking pubs, i.e. workplaces for some, would ensure
that some people *don't* have a choice.


Of course they have a bloody choice, they applied to work in the pub, and
they are free to leave whenever they like.


Pub workers may not always be
spoilt for choice about where jobs are available, and their customers
sometimes go out in groups, where it can take a lot of willpower to
refuse to go with the group if everyone else wants to go to a
particular pub. I expect you know all about willpower, being a smoker.


Nobody is ever forced to work behind a bar, and in a country with a
population of 60 million please don't try to make out that these people
*cannot* find another job elsewhere.


--
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

Jim Mason wrote:
In article , davidt-
says...
On 2007-04-12, Jim Mason wrote:
In article , [email protected]
says...

So I have to emigrate because of a bunch of Nazis stopping me and
millions of other people from doing something just because they
don't happen to like it?

Nobody is stopping you do anything - they are merely moving you to
a place where you can smoke without interfering with non-smokers
air. Not a lot to ask it it? Or are you just being selfish?

I don't think its selfish to think that an appropriate solution would
be "smoking" and "non-smoking" areas, rather than banning all indoors
"smoking" areas.

Ideally yes but in reality it is unworkable.


The compromise ban was that any pub that wanted to serve food would have to
be a non-smoking pub. That on its own would have created a large number of
non-smoking pubs, and if all of the claims on this thread about the full ban
being so popular with the public, then market forces alone would or should
create a large number of non-smoking pubs.

The "unworkable" claim is in reality a complaint from the non-smokers that
there wouldn't be enough non-smoking pubs - all the "unworkable" claim was
there for was to object to the compromise solution in order to get the full
ban that they desired.

But they could of course legislated to make sure that there would have been
a sufficient number of non-smoking pubs - I don't care how they did it, but
if that's the only way to make it happen (if market forces wouldn't give you
sufficient non-smoking pubs) that's what should have happened.


--
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

"Zathras" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:57:53 GMT, "Turkey Cough"
wrote:

income tax a tax based upon you income and thus your ability to pay.

Trouble is that you're only talking (as do some politicians on these
matters) about one side of the equation. I would be able to pay tens
of thousands of pounds in taxes if I didn't have to *spend* my income
to survive. People at any income level can easily have liabilities
that outstrip their income - taxing them more just hurts them more.

One of the poorest (in terms of disposable income) I knew was a farmer
who was earning about 1,000,000 UKP a year, that good news was
somewhat blunted because that big farm cost 1,500,000 UKP a year to
run. Every year he'd pop off to the bank to get a bigger personal loan
to cover the difference. Last time I saw him, he was about 8,000,000
UKP in debt and living in a style Dickens would have recognised. It's
all he knows and it's his home so he keeps hoping for an upturn. He'll
probably sell up for housing development.

These taxes are inherently unfair
and immoral because the hit the porest hardest, those least able to pay.

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

Rubbish you get paid child benefit


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.


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.

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

Close loop holes

--
Z

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:26:10 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

Zathras wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:02:08 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

It's not good when inhaled in the concentrations that smokers inhale
it at.
Non-smokers do not inhale smoke with anything close to the
concentrations
that smokers inhale.

I suspect you're ill equipped to cope with this


I'm hardly lacking in the qualification department, old son.

The more Uni Degrees the less common sense in my experience. Some of
us joined the real world rather than spend all of it getting taught
about it.


but here goes
(again)..sensitivity to different concentrations of smoke varies
depending on the person.

Since you're an expert on the safety of passive smoking, what caused
Roy Castle's lung cancer and subsequent death if passive smoking
cannot kill?


My dad died of lung cancer, and he didn't smoke, and he didn't go to the pub
much.

How do you know he didn't go to the pub *enough* though? Could there
have been another cause? All your evidence seems to me to be seriously
inconclusive.

So don't fking tell me that Roy Castle definitely died of passive
smoking, okay?

********. You can't say he didn't. In his case it was the most likely
cause as he wasn't exposed to other (say industrial or mining)
pollutants.

The BMJ has said there's no "definitive" link between passive smoking and
death. Stick to the facts, not wishful thinking.

More head in the sand stuff? They absolutely do not say that 'there IS
NO LINK' - it's all qualified. It's immeasurable and not quantifiable
due to measuring the exposure and consequences over a very long
timescale. I doubt there will ever be a definitive link however smoke
is not good for lungs so exposure requires to be minimised in the
workplace - end of story.

As for the rest of yours and all the other anti-smoker nonsense, I'm ducking
out of this thread

Doubt it.

because I've got other and better things to do,

!

and arguing about it with selfish anti-smokers won't actually change anything
anyway

And you are unable to see how little real difference it will make to
your life.

- you've got your way.

No. If I had my way I'd ban smoking 100%. This is a compromise that
allows the exchequer to still cream it in off smokers.

--
Z

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:00:42 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

Zathras wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:33:18 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:

This bit by Richard Smith, Editor BMJ is telling

"We are certainly interested in the question of whether passive
smoking kills, and it's clear to us that the question has not been
definitively answered. Indeed, it may well never be answered
definitively. It's a hard question, and our methods are inadequate.""

..all that *tells* me is that they don't know.


Einstein, congratulations on that fantastic piece of insight.

Eh? You're idea of telling me I'm wrong is to present evidence that I
*might* be right?

When the full ban was passed they were saying it would save hundreds of
lives per year. They were lying,

No, they were *politicians*. You do understand how they operate don't
you? I would expect fewer facts from politicians than, even,
journalists!

because no link has ever been proven.

...and never will be either way.

The anti-smokers say "but it kills smokers", but I'm sorry, if you can't
prove a link then you don't have a leg to stand on for a full ban.

...and if you can't disprove it??

So I have to emigrate because of a bunch of Nazis stopping me and millions
of other people from doing something just because they don't happen to like
it?

I think that's one of the characteristics of a democracy.

--
Z

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.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

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

In article ,
Turkey Cough wrote:
Stick a drug addict on a fertile desert island with an unlimited
supply of his drug of choice and see just how long he lasts.

Probally a lot longer than you. Drugs don't prevent you from farming
fishiing or hunting or infact any kind of work and people who suggest
are idiotic.

They can prevent you from breathing at the end of the day. If the other
organ failures don't get you first.

May can carry out far mor advanced activitites such as filling in
benefit forms and having the irintelligentce to claim for their dog too.

Well, yes. But not every addict ends in the gutter. Only the poor ones.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

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

DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:
The BMJ has said there's no "definitive" link between passive smoking and
death. Stick to the facts, not wishful thinking.

Or more correctly and article published in thr BMJ about a study funded
by the tobacco industry.

The editorial - which is closer to that the BMJ 'says' - rather than
your assertion

"He says it is difficult to measure the impact of environmental smoke
with any degree of precision, and thus there is a high risk of
misleading findings."

No, basically your utterance above is more lies.