enhanced by
Bookmark:
More ASH garbage being spouted i see!!!!
Before people had choice!!!! Now they dont as its being dictated by a facsist nanny statist government!!
Ha! Nae Joy then Charles. Why should others have to put up with your, stinking, disgusting, unhealthy habits and breathe in your minging smoke? You're also wrong Charles; BEFORE the ban, people didn't have a choice. Now they do. They can enjoy a drink in a smoke-free environment or, they can join the minority of smokers rotting their lungs outside. There was no choice whatsoever before the ban.
It would be interesting to see if the guys braving the weather for a smoke and a dram live longer than those having a cushy seat inside. Mind you it is a disgusting habit.
To Charles - What choice did the thousands of bar workers have before the smoking ban ? This ban was partly brought in to safeguard the health of these workers and ensure a safe, clean and healthy working environment, which most other workers take for granted.
I was recently home in Scotland, and it was such a joy to be able to enjoy a pint without being half-suffocated.
More propoganda, i actually believed in cancer charities etc until seeing how the corruptly backed this proposal, and more of the nanny state, telling us what to do with our livesIain, i take it you dont drink in spain then as the ammount of smoke in bars there is and was always far worse than scotland
Charles #1Are you fairly witty?
Best thing Holyrood has done !
No more stench, sore eyes or wheeze.I look forward to autumn and especially winter when all the smokers are forced to stand outside in the rain or snow to get their fix. It might prompt them to finally give up.
>>Mr X, from Liberton, found his visits to his local curtailed eight years ago after developing late-onset asthma. He said: "In smoky pubs, I couldn't go in and I only lasted in clearer pubs for half an hour."
With the smoking ban in place, however, he is able to enjoy his usual 24 pints with his friends once again. He added: "I can go along and get as blootered as I like...
Mr. X is 94.
Another non story. Will we have to suffer all this rubbish after every few months, years, etc. of the smoking ban? It's enough to make you want to repeal the law, just so as to get rid of the dire dross that is used to fill the media.
My local pub is up for sale because of the draconian undemocratic nanny state smoking ban.It sould be up to the landlord to permit smoking on HIS premises if he chooses,not some asre in a suit at folyrood sponging of the tax payer for a living. i continue to smoke when and where i choose,and i have not been caught by the idotic smoking police,also no one has asked me to put ma fag oot.Lets have mass anarchy , light up ,dont pay any fine.The jails are full.
7. Steve /DONT BE STUPID,LABOUR CLONE.
Need I say more...read these from a professional who is prepared to tell the truth unlike our political leaders
http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.1271/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp
As for clean air...the investment of £400.00 solves the problem...
http://www.sharp.ca/products/ion/
http://www.sharp.ca/products/ion/video_2005_eng.html
We should also consider the health implications of the smoking ban. Elaina Collie-Duguid, Research Fellow at the University of Aberdeen, says that the risks associated with passive smoking will be minimised by the ban in public places:
http://www.newsquoter.com/ViewQuote.aspx?QuoteId=218
Charlie sounds like he needs a fag BADLY! Yeah its grand to have a bar lunch without some punters smoke drifting on ma plate,& coming home after a night out, no smelly clothes,hair etc.etc...Well Done Scotland, may the Sensible Nanny State go on to bigger & better things!
14. BadBoy /I will take that as a vote for me. your freind jack.
14. BadBoy / What do you mean well done scotland ,you fool.The majority of people living in scotland are against a total ban,ask the undemocratic,pathetic executive,they know the truth,they paid good money for a poll the went against their bullying lies.So well done scotland my erse.get your facts right hypocrite.
Winter must be coming - I can hear the mutinous twitterings of the baccy addicts going cold turkey outside.
Hey puffer which majority would that be - the smokers who are inconvenienced the most by this ban! You know there is ASH Scotlands truth, the Scottish Executives truth and then the real truth and the real truth is that the ban is here and here to stay so get a life smoke free of course
By the way Glasgow has one of the worst health records in the western world but of course smoking has nothing to do with it !!
I smoked before the ban. I don't now. And life is so much better, I wish they'd brought the ban in 40 years ago. But I do think it's a bit daft not to allow "smokers only, come here and puff and drink yourself to death" facilities.
18. debbie, Sad deluded little labour person.You, like your pathetic party choose to ignore the facts .Go back into your little labour liar bubble. If you have not got the brains to find the the executives poll , that stated 75% of scots did not agree with a total ban, then i suggest you have a peek at their web site.
Shame Bush & Blair didn't realise that the tobacco companies are the hidden terrorists with their weapon of mass destruction.
It would have been much better if they had bombed a few tobacco HQs into oblivion rather going into a foreign war.
Steve, you think this ridiculous legislation combined with a Scottish climate is going to stop most smokers? Even the Executive recognises that to move the numbers of smokers down even a couple of percentage points will take years, and that is optimistic considering that tobacco revenues in Ireland are rising again. Meanwhile a quarter of our population are left without reasonable social and recreational facilities. I am not one of them as I don't smoke (apart from the occasional puff) but I am ashamed of any society that ejects people of all ages and in all conditions of life to smoke in the street, and then complains of the mess.
Elaina Collie-Duguid notwithstanding, I don't accept the 'passive smoking kills' nonsense either. Follow Bill's links at #11 and you will see that even the anti-smoking experts are embarrassed by some of these claims.
Debbie
when I was at school we were told that Glasgow's health record was due to its bad housing combined with the climate. No doubt there are occupational factors too. But that's all ignored now. Smoking, exclusively causes EVERYTHING!!!
I don't care what addicts do to themselves, but they have no right to inflict their toxic side effects on the rest of us.
Smokers are a sad bunch of deluded stinkers.
Belinda I didn't say that smoking was the cause but it certainly contributes significantly to it. Smoking is used by many as a coping mechanism for all the other crap that is going on in their lives and smoking cannot and should not be looked at in isolation - unfortunately little can be done about the weather.
Puffer you are a patronising little git - you assume that I am a Labourite when you know nothing about my political affiliation's - I am sure that there are pro and antis from all sides - never assume, it makes ans out of u and me!!!!!!!!
an ass out of u and me
26. debbie / 12 Well did you have a look at the executives poll, or are you just mouthing off.sounds to me as if you listen to no one apart from yourself.
By the way Glasgow has one of the worst health records in the western world but of course smoking has nothing to do with it !! YOU SAID IT .
Debbie works for the executive.
Charles (no.1) You are a complete ignoramus. The ban on smoking is one of the most positive things ever to happen in Scotland. Whether you consider it a 'nanny state' thing or not, you better get used to it! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!
Charles (no.1) I agree with charles, correct on all counts, and i dont smoke,
30. jennifer / You gota die of somfin
28 i thought so too!!
Euan29 before you had your smokefree pubs and restaurants and smokers had theirs- now all must be smokefree!!
Do you really want every establishment???? Cos in my opinion its the owner who decides not the fascist government in follyrod!!Youd alos get used to places flouting the law cos therell be some!! But youll probably snitch too- pure Soviet Russia/ Nazi Germany style!!
PS 29 your not Euan Blair by any chance are you????
Charles
What "choice" did the non-nicotine addicted have before the ban?
Would you sit in a room with me if I sprayed my choice of toxic, smelly and carcinogenic compounds over you?No - you demand your right to breathe unpolluted air!Well done the SE - the best thing you have done so far.
I was in England a few weeks ago and could barely enter some pubs never mind stay for a drink - I hope they go for the ban soon and give equal rights to all.
g36 but smoke is differnet to what you mention smoking in pubs went on for centuries before some fascists in your parliament decided they wanted to tell people how to run their lives and businesses!!!!
Equal rights to all- what about the owner and the smoker!! Dont they have the rights too!!!! Not just a random mnonsmoker who says you have to enter a Pub!!
I enter a pub ask the owner if he minds if i smoke and he says ok- whats wrong with that?? Even if it offends a third party it dosent matter as you know who owns the pub its his business!!!!
Now ASH and their cronies in follyrod or whatever the place is called decided that right should be removed!!!!
I'm not nicotine addicted and I was much happier before the ban than I am now. I get so tired of being told that all this non-smoking fanaticism is in MY interests when it is quite distasteful and I can see the elderly thrown out on the street. This is in my interests? I don't think so.
The choice was there. To smoke or not to smoke. If you didn't want it, you could go somewhere big, go somewhere smokeless, ventilated. I was happy in the smokers' area.
Now the choice is not there. I would not work in the hospitality trade if a condition of service is that I can't choose to welcome a smoker, or in the health service if I have to eject unwell smokers on to the street. What choice is that?
38. Belinda, Edinburgh /WELL SAID .
Charles. It just simply is'nt true saying there were smoke-free pubs and restaurants BEFORE the ban, if there were any, I didn't know of them and I drink in a lots of pubs.
If you want to smoke so much in pubs then move to Germany where it is still allowed, at the same time you might be able to join the Nazi Party and force YOUR deluded opinions on others.
IGNORAMUS!!!
puffer 27 haven't you heard of sarcasm!
40 a day no I don't work for the executive
37, Charles.
"It's aye been". Love it.
I know you know smoking in public is bad and the ban is good. I would also ban it at bus stops. Perhaps city centres too.
Euan there were at least three pubs, the Black Swan in Leith, one next to the Edinburgh central job centre and another – but I preferred the smokers' places anyway so didn't know. There were a few restaurants to, probably like Suzie's Diner (wholefood specialists). And dozens of wee coffee shops.
The Nazis were not very sympathetic to smokers by the way!
Belinda sorry have I missed something - who is throwing the elderly out on to the street?? And have you ever thought that as ridiculous as it may seem (again sarcasm in case puffer missed it) that smoking may be contributing to the ill health!!!!!!!
Maybe not actually throwing them Debbie, but that is where they are forced to go. They are not allowed to smoke indoors, therefore they must go out. It may have escaped your notice that not all of them are unhealthy, and so you can't get away with implying that it is all their own fault.
And it is not just a simple matter of stepping outside the door in many cases – you will now get elderly (and other) people visiting relatives in hospital, who have to go not just outside the building but right off the grounds. To say nothing of the staff and patients, and valuable health service resources have to go on enforcing this nonsense.
And before you say health authorities should not be seen to endorse smoking – no authority anywhere should be seen to insist on discourtesy as a matter of policy. There are alternative ways of doing things. Excluding people with the express intention of 'denormalising' a legal habit is uncivil: especially when we do it to people who are more vulnerable than we are, or who are under stress.
Firstly I did not imply that all smokers are unhealthy and all non-smokers healthy, it is however a matter of risk and your risk of disease is far greater if you are a smoker.
Secondly surely most smokers can abstain long enough to visit whoever in hospital - most visiting times are 1 hour!! Also how is not endorsing smoking discourteous?
I agree wholeheartedly that often those who choose to smoke are more vulnerable and I have commented several times that smoking cannot be tackled in isolation but as part of a far bigger picture.
Finally can you tell me the alternative way of doing things because I for one am interseted to hear what a better alternative might be?!
I think the problem is that people are being forced to request smokers to leave the building. We know that many people feel this as a discourtesy, and certainly I would feel discourteous asking somebody to go out as I don't think it is necessary. We are not being given any discretion. Personally I think this is a massive discourtesy perpetrated on all of us who prefer to exercise discretion.
As for hospital visiting times, this is all very well if you have a car, but what if you are limited to public transport and the times don't match the visiting hours, you have a long walk from the entrance of the grounds to the building, a lot of waiting about before and after the hour, and perhaps your loved one is dangerously ill so that you are under stress. What is wrong with providing a comfortable space for smokers in these and any other situations. Even for staff, who are dealing often with unwell people and distressed relatives and are forced (I am using that word again hoping you know I don't mean literally) off the grounds to smoke. If I had a surgeon working on me I would rather he didn't have the tremors! or an anaesthetist, would like his mind to be on the job!!!
A better way is possible but it means that the ban has to be relaxed.
Belinda be a relaist - THE BAN IS NOT GOING TO BE RELAXED - NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS!!!
I know this might sound harsh but if someone is using public transport (heaven forbid) (puffer sarcasm again) and has a walk or a wait can't they use that time to smoke before entering hospital grounds and buildings.
If I had a surgeon or anaesthetist working on me who smoked I would rather he didn't breathe his smelly stale breath on my open wound!
Don't tar all non-smokers with the same brush - we do exercise discretion.
All NHS buildings in Glasgow are now smoke free with the grounds to follow suit in March 07. Whilst not unsympathetic with the plight of the smoker I dont believe you have yet given me a realistic alternative?!
Debbie did you get a crystal ball for christmas? How do you know it won't be relaxed?
I am a non-smoker and I am not allowed to exercise discretion. If I were a bar worker I would not be allowed to permit smoking in the pub. If I were a security guard I would be expected to stop somebody smoking in hospital grounds though for the life of me I can't see what good it would do. I would feels ashamed of myself for following orders.
What harm does it do anybody to smoke in the grounds? What if the weather is inclement?
The realistic alternative is to supply a smoking room for visitors and proper smoking facilities for staff. Hospitals are big places. But that is an option open only to people who are prepared to be flexible.
I don't know if you noticed but people in operating theatres wear masks. Your wound would not be in danger of infection from anybody's breath. Also in the operating theatre is state of the art ventilation to ensure the air is free of impurities. If it can be achieved in the operating theatre, where standards are critical, it can be achieved in a pub. or smoking room.
People rightly or wrongly bend the rules all the time!
What if the weather is inclement - it might make them ill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You cannot expect hospitals to install costly air filtration systems to smoke rooms just to keep smokers happy!!!!!!! As for pubs and clubs you must be having a laugh.
As for operating theatres, I will give you that one - I would probably be at greater risk from MRSA aferwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debbie, you amaze me! It doesn't matter if anxious visitors get sick by having to get their smoke in cold weather. Are you for real?
I can expect hospitals to cater properly for ALL of their staff, patients and visitors. Personally I don't think the smoke from cigarettes warrants ventilation systems either, good comforable airy rooms are all that is required.
Yes, ventilation systems are in place in many hospitality venues already. They are not used now that there is no smoking and other odours are seriously annoying people. Don't you read the papers?
Debbie.. as you have the knowledge, please tell me how much these costly filtration systems cost. Forget it I will tell you...around £400.00 and available from Currys Superstores. or online
As far as hospitals and thir air conditioning...again pure science has the answer, go and meet Moldman at http://www.steril-aire.com/moldwars.htm
Debbie Before you then duck out by saying that the £400.00 unit cannot be up to much, it has been proven to deactivate H5N1 Avian Flue and SARS viruses and is now also fitted into Toyota and Nissan car air conditioning systems.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25784
http://www.jama-english.jp/europe/news/2005/mar-apr/peter...
There is also another Health Department issue to address http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=52114
Euan 40 Belinda has answered your question on where was smokefree!!!!
I thought Nazi Germany would be perfect for you and Debbie!!!! If i could get a time machine id give it to you!!!! There you can ram your tyranical views on others!!!!
54. Charles / I WILL SECOND THAT ,CHARLES WELL SAID,PAL
Debbie works for the tabacco control division, she is on £30.00 an hour to spout her dross.
Debbie...read this one, it was created specially for you.
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=378952005&form...
Whether you smoke or dont smoke who wants to live in a world that is ruled by health fanatics. The first government that banned smoking in public places was Adolf Hitlers. His saying your body belongs to the nation, food is not a private thing. Does this sound familiar to you. Every day we take risks in our lives when you drive to work in the morning you dont know if you are going to get home in one piece at night due to the standard of other peoples driving. No democratic government implements a ban without proper consultation, note I said proper consultation with everyone not just ASH and Cancer Research. This government is wearing size 10 jackboots. When you remove freedom of choice from owners of businesses and customers alike you are living in a dictatorship some people may like that me I prefer freedom. Carnt wait for the next elections.
I cant understand anyone critising the smoking ban.I was fed up stinking of stale fags after a night out. Anyone who thinks its acceptable to subject others to such a stench amazes me.The facts are that the majority shouldn't have to put up with the dangers of passive smoking etc. from the minority. Going out for a drink has now become alot more pleasurable.
Donnie 58 - surely you're not equating smoking to eating food?
Brian 60 - Ah well you see in Adolfs world you wouldnt have been allowed crisps either only the perfect human specimen was acceptable, pretty much like Jacks world at folyrood.
Simon 59, no one has ever forced anyone through the doors of a pub, if you dont like the smell of cigarettes why do you enter the premises and why do people think they have the right to dictate to pub owners what their pub should be. I dont like the stench of people who wear the same clothes 2 days running, smell of sweat have bad breath and dont shower everyday, I simply move away from them bearing in mind they must be writhing in bacteria that you carnt see. Consider this if you were in an unventilated room with a smoker for 1 hour what would happen to you, nothing. If you were in an unventilated room for an hour with a car engine running what would happen to you - you would be dead therefore which is more dangerous car fumes or cigarette smoke. Personally I think you have every right to non smoking pubs but equally I think that smokers have every right to smoking pubs, and I firmly believe that publicans have the right to choose what they want their premises to be we are supposed to live in a democracy but the truth is we dont. The test of a true democracy is not banning those things that we dislike and the government that governs best is the one that governs the least.
61-Well said my friend Donnie!! Problem the antis need some time to think- lets hope they get the picture better now!!
I was going to read all the posts to this story as I've been following it quite closely. Unfortunately it's the same old thing. Whenever a story comes out that suits the anti-ban brigade we hear the "i told you so" mantra but whenever a story comes out that suggests it could be a good thing and people are actually IN FAVOUR of the ban they just rubbish it, citing ASH propaganda. There's no point arguing with these people. Fully paid up members of the "La-La-La I Can't Hear You Party". You'll notice the "choice" argument only works in one direction, too. Before the ban it was, "you don't have to go to the pub". Now, when you say,"You don't have to smoke." or, "You don't have to go to the pub.", we're, all of a sudden being unfair and inconsiderate! It beggars belief!
the difference is the owner's choice to decide whether to ban smoking is now gone Robert63!!!!
There was freedom regarding smoking before!!!! the word smoke-free is an oxymoron!!!! It means nothing!! Its made up by the ASH brigade!!You think snitch lines bring freedom!! Go back to Nazi Germany where you belong!!
I find it really offensive to suggest that someone return to Nazi Germany - thank God in this country we do have freedom of speech - I lost many family members in Nazi Germany so do not dare to suggest that because I or someone else does not agree with your opinion for whatever reason that makes us Nazis
Try not to get too upset debbie. This whole Nazi thing is another one of their favourite lines. In previous posts on the subject they actually managed to equate the ban to the Holocaust! Goodness knows how. It was unbelievable. It's best to leave them to their wee tantrums. The toys are definitely being thrown out the pram.
Charles #64 I'd find it very difficult to go back to Nazi Germany as it doesn't exist! There was this thing called World War 2 (think of a war as just a big fight, but with guns and tanks and stuff) and the Nazis were defeated. If you go to a building called a LIBRARY there are even a few books written on the subject. I hope this helps to fill the yawning gap in your knowledge.
yes debbie(65) indeed thank god we have free speech!!
I too lost many family members!!!! By the way though did you know it was the Nazis who first started tobacco control!!!! And guess who they did theyr experiments on!! the thought of this makes me want to puke!!!!
Im afraid snitch lines bring this country one step towards that direction!! I dont recall such things happening before Labour got elected in 1997- to inform on ones neighbours- to denounce them!!!!
problem is robert(66) is that you obviously live in the wrong period!! I am well aware of the war i also lost family in that war!!
keeping to the same subject why do you think its ok to throw old veterans out on the street in the cold when they want to smoke??That makes me sick when these people risked their lives for us to live in freedom and look how you pay them back!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourselves in supporting this legislation!!!!! Such legislation makes me ashamed of coming from the same country as you people!!!!
Charles #67, why did you think it was ok that people who fought in the War couldn't go out to the pub due to the effect smoke in the air had on them? My wife's grandad fought during the War and was part of the Arctic convoys. He has asbestosis due to the work he did. Yet he couldn't go out because the smoke affected his breathing. Those who smoke only have to go outside for five or ten minutes. Those like my wife's grandfather couldn't go out at all. Nice to know you place a higher value on the contribution of smokers. Shocking!
Robert
From your intolerant selfish views I can see why you are so obsessed with the nazi's.
Your argument of who is more right to tell someone to stay out of someone else's pub if they don't like the smells is ridiculous; it is neither yours or a smokers right to do so. You are upset only because, given a choice, pub owners do not choose to provide smells that you like. Now that choice has been removed from pub owners you try to twist the argument as if choice were still there. This is the reason you support the removal of choice of the pub owner.
Should we ban meat from restaurants so that vegetarians don't have to put up with the smell but can still have the right to enter and dictate? More harmful chemicals and many of the 400 known indoor carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke are produced from frying meat, shouldn't the chef's and non meat eaters be protected from something that is more harmful than smoke? Shouldn't we brand parents who cook in front of their children as child abusers? Or how about million pound TV adverts that tell us meat eaters stink.
This kind of hate campaign brings me to your Nazi rants, are you saying that persecution is acceptable unless it results in murder?The nazi's persecuted and waged hate campaigns against millions of people without actually murdering them; is that ok in your eyes?
Steve, there would be no point having a "meat eaters stink" campaign because they don't. Ask any ex smoker about it and they'll tell you they had no idea they smelled so bad.
I haven't seen a single "rant" from me about Nazis. On the contrary, that seems to be the sole preserve of you and your bleeding hearts brigade.
Asking someone to step outside for ten minutes isn't persecuting anyone. If it was I wouldn't support it since most of my family smoke. And that, like most of your points, would be just silly.
A vegetarian may disagree with you and most people would also disagree with you about the smell of smoke or we would have seen many non-smoking pubs before the ban. I personally have no problem with the smell of smoke, my ancestors happily breathed it for 50 000 years and I happen to quite like the smell of cigar smoke; whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Your view of the 'moaning smoker' is merely the method you employ to ignore the very basic and simple fact that it should be the pub owner who decides what smells or anything else for that matter are allowed on his/her premises. The argument of who likes it and who doesn't is clearly and completely irrelevant.
No-one is asking smokers to step outside for ten minutes; they are forcing them to do it by law. You can play with the words as much as you like but it is still exactly what it is; forcing, not requesting.
You also have a weird definition of persecution; labeling smokers as child abusers, TV adverts unjustifiably claiming they stink, making them socially unacceptable. Do you have a word other than persecution that the "bleeding hearts" may use?
Which of my points do you find silly? the ones you can't answer and choose to ignore?.....
Would you back a ban on meat in restaurants to protect the nostrils and laundry bills of vegetarians and the health of chefs?
Would you feel slightly persecuted if they made you eat your steak in the car park but leave your glass of wine inside?
Can you define persecution and clarify whether or not you think murder has to be involved before the term is appropriate? I think you will find that ideological persecution is the perfect term to describe the de-normalisation of 14 million people.
you must have seen different things than me. I've yet to see anything that says smokers are child abusers.
The claim that smokers stink (of cigarette smoke) is, to the vast majority of the population, simply stating the truth.
I've yet to hear of a chef dying from the effects of inhaling his cooking.
Since you mention social acceptance, I take it you'd fully support someone just dropping their trousers and relieving themselves iin public. After all, if they find it sacceptable then you can't argue with that.
But then you'd tell me I'm being silly. Just like your eating in the car park point.
Robert,
The anti smoking movement have used the child abuse slur on many occasions, do you recall the tv advert with smoke coming from babies mouths to name but one?.
I'm sure you don't wish to speak for "the vast majority of the population", perhaps instead you can explain why non-smoking pubs were so unpopular with your "vast majority" not flocking to avoid the "stink". Or perhaps you could explain why you support ideology that prevents the working class pubs and clubs allowing smoking where a "vast majority" actually don't mind the "stink", do you know better than them? Are they incapable of judging smells?.
It's funny that you haven't heard "of a chef dying from the effects of inhaling his cooking", there is not one single recorded death anywhere in the world from passive smoke either.
The point is, it is very difficult to explain why passive smoke is harmful because it produces less harmful chemicals than cooking. You can't have it both ways.
If a landlord allowed public peeing in his pub that would be his choice and many pubs in France don't seem to mind a "public peeing room". I suspect however such pubs in England might be quite empty; the opposite is true of smoking pubs which makes your peeing argument quite lame.
Why is my eating in the car park argument silly; do you have a reason? More harmful particles are present; some people do object to the aroma; you said it's not unreasonable to ask someone to go outside for ten minutes. Why is this more silly than the smoking argument?
Robert & Debbie should both perhaps realise that the pro-smoking brigade, or to satisfy _-Steve-_'s sense of nicety the libertarian anti-smoking ban lot, having lost their campaign now resort to a few desperate ploys.1)The Nazi comparison. Hitler was a Nazi and a bad person. Hitler was anti-smoking. Ergo anyone who has an attitude against smoking is a Nazi. If Mussolini got the trains to run on time & was a Fascist, does that make Fascism a good idea? Try watching the Nürnberg Trials on BBC2 for clarification about Naziism. I feel nothing but contempt for people who make puerile comments about Jackboot McConnell etc.2)Attempt to deflect any criticism of smoking by making attacks on car exhaust fumes, cooking odours or whatever et al, ad nauseum.3)Make personal attacks on anyone of a differing opinion with particular reference to their being ugly .Anything but consider the argument.4)Plough through reams of debate about passive smoking, but at all costs ignore the fact that legislation has been enacted that they don't like.5)Bring up sentimental deflection about war veterans being "thrown out in the cold" and hundreds / thousands (?) of barstaff being put out of work.6)Quote "Freedom of Choice" when they mean the freedom to do whatever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like.Sorry, have I missed any?
Evening David,
Just been watching the trials.
Can you give us a definition of persecution?
Can you explain why meat in restaurants shouldn't be banned to protect people? or do you favour double standards? Is it only things you don't like that should be banned?
What reams of debate are you referring to? By "debate" do you mean the one sided propaganda of the anti-smoking movement?
Are you in favour of removing freedoms of war veterans to protect your nostrils?
A publicans freedom to allow smells of choice on his/her property is hardly expecting to do "whatever they like" why do you think you have the right to smells of choice in someone else's pub?
Are you against libertarianism; is it defeated now?
Contrary to your claim I would love to consider the argument. Could you provide a single piece of evidence that passive smoke is harmful? Can you justify ideological persecution of 14 million people? Can you explain why the government won't back an indoor air quality policy?
Sorry, have I missed any?
