enhanced by
Bookmark:
"That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party"
Well, the EEN is a party political broadcast for the Tory party normally.
If 90% of people are happy with their Quality of Life in Edinburgh I wish they would go about LOOKING like they are happy with their quality of life.
Ive never seen so many miserable people in one place.
re #4. The miserable looking lot are all Hibs Supporters.The sun is shining in the smiles in Gorgie.
Trams are a good thing. But how have the city managed to spend sooooooooooo much money designing a single tram route? Talk about paying over the odds for something extremely straightforward!
Truly modest claims as befits a man of the cloth. Pity he doesn't open his eyes and ears to what people really think of the disreputable crew he leads.
This is a waste of time.
EWAN AITKEN is hardly going to say everythings rubbish is he ?
I could contradict just about everything he says but I wont bother.
Interesting though that the cooncil have decided they should give a Queens Speech.
How can that numpty say that it has been a successful year for Edinburgh? He is about to sack his whole workforce then reemploy them at a lower rate. It may have been 'successful' for the tourists, but not those who have to live and work in Edinburgh. What makes him think that the smoking ban has been successful? Cigarette sales have not reduced and there is some evidence that they have increased, particularly in the clubs. The only impact is that smokers are getting cold and the pubs smell disgusting. Who actually wants trams, not those living in the South of Edinburgh. Stupid man.
Boba , the people in the south of Edinburgh arent getting trams .
The roads here are very rough. If they want to promote use of the local buses, a lot more than £22m could be spent on the roads - just to get rid of all the roughness. And the trams are already turning into another Holyrood.
this sort of propaganda really makes my blood boil.
"The smoking ban in public places was very welcome. I spent too long in my previous profession at gravesides and in the crematorium with those mourning the loss of a loved one from smoking-related illnesses.
I am really pleased that people have supported it. Figures show that more than 99 per cent of people are complying with the ban in Edinburgh, which may be helped by the fact that while we are vigilant, we do have a non-confrontational approach to the ban. "
Welcome? Non-confrontational? I beg to differ!
No wonder there is 99% compliance when you employ such jackboot tactics, which would not be necessary if the ban were "welcome".
And that old cliche about "smoking RELATED illnesses" thrown in there again- more propaganda!
Refer to the NHS's own paper on this subject: http://www.healthscotland.com/documents/448.aspx
Even if you do belief that second hand smoke is harmful, look at the figures closely. Based on their admitted "estimates":
You're 18 and a half times more likely to die of lung cancer from other causes as you are from passive smoke!
You're nearly 18 times as likely to die of heart disease from other causes as you are from passive smoke!
You're nearly 14 times as likely to die of a stroke from other causes as you are from passive smoke!
You're nearly 41 times as likely to die from a respiratory illness from other causes as you are from passive smoke!
And this is a worst case scenario from an ETS perspective!
The report goes on to say that there is "no evidence that active smokers have increased risks due to additional passive exposure."
So how on earth can one justify banning smokers from opening up a bar for smokers in this supposedly free and democratic country?<
I should also add that according to that report, 63% of "smoking related" deaths have absolutely nothing to do with smoking, whether passive or secondary.
The NHS figures here:
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/1126/t1copyrs9.jpghttp://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3614/t2copybp9.jpg
Note that they admit these figures to be estimates.
With regards to the risks of passive smoking: Imagine yourself at the starting line of a 100m sprint track. Step forward 1mm. Congratulations you've just been born: you now have a 1 in 100,000 chance of conracting lung cancer (1mm/100m)
According to the 'best' data that anti smoking scientists can come up with, exposure to passive smoking raises your chances of becoming ill by 25%- this is the figure constantly being bandied about by the anti smoking media.
SO, step forward 1/4 of 1mm. Carefully now, not too far. Not made a huge lot of difference to your position has it?
That's because the result is not statistically significant. Any number of things could have caused you to move forward by that tiny incriment.
It certainly isn't a justification for grey suits to tell us how to live our lives.
In reply to JonnyCab #12 & 13.
'63% of "smoking related" deaths have absolutely nothing to do with smoking'
Thats reassuring for the remaining 37%.
Regardless of the health implications smoking is just plain selfish. Why others have to put up with the stench caused by smokers?
On a more general note I know that like any city Edinburgh has its problems but overal I think that it is a great city to live in.
#15 dave: Disliking the smell of something isn't a good enough reason to ban something. I personally abhor the smell of seafood, eggs and strong cheese, though I am happy to allow other people to enjoy them. Whats more I won't lecture them on their respectively high salt, cholesterol and fat contents while they do.
When was the last time you left a pub or club with the smell of seafood, eggs or strong cheese in your clothes?
Also I'm not aware of any health problems regarding "passive eating"
I'm not lecturing people but if there behaviour has an adverse affect on other people you would hope that common courtesy would prevail.
I agree with johnny this ban is complete ****- oh poor man had to spend time at cemetries!! Poor man- death is part of life! And what proof was there that those deaths were caused by smoking- er none!!
And Im also sick and tired of political correctness infected media saying how good and wonderful bans are and how they are successful!! this is pure junk, when there is no proof of passive smoking being so harmful!! And welcome- that makes me p***ed off- how can one welcome the illegality of an owner allowing smoking in his OWN PROPERTY?? The workers can seek work elsewhere!!
yes Dave17 and coutesy of respecting other's property too!! The issue is NOT smoking its property rights!!!!
Dave, if you had read my previous posts you would see that any health risk from passive smoking is infinitesmal, and it is extremely questionable whether this risk exists at all. For this reason, the ban is spurious.
To put things in perspective: the worst risk they can come up with of contracting lung cancer from passive smoke is at worst 1.25/100,000. The risk of contracting lung cancer from drinking whole milk is 2.4/100,000.
As far as the smell of food goes, yes, I have been able to detect it on myself, particularly when I worked in kitchens in my student days.
Passive eating? Well, it was just an example. I suppose one could argue that we should ban the obese from establishments where fatty food is served in case they are tempted to eat any of it :P
I wasn't accusing you of lecturing anyone, and I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on this issue, however I feel that it is against 'common courtesy' to force people outside to smoke, not to allow them a smoking room inside, and to forbid them from running a smoking bar for smokers on the grounds of an infinitesmal health risk, which is based on unsound scientific analysis.
This is also about freedom of choice, the see this,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8130969589921300..., the Government are getting away with far to much we should all stick together, just take the old communist country the Czech republic, you can smoke openly there, and you can smoke openly cannabis, it is now a free country, and we are not, they want us to have identification cards, for Gods sake, the check of it, and they say it's for the terrorists, we have terrorists because of the way the Government are, it's not because of you and me.Comparing smoke to car emissions, well first we need to know how many smokers in the pub you go and how big the pub is, because I have lots of non-smoking friends and they do not coughing and spluttering with their eyes watering. As smoke goes up and to the ventilation systems and doors.
Yes sit in a garage with the engine running and you will be dead in 15 minutes, I sit in a garage with a load of smokers I will be the till I die of old age.________________________________________________________________________________What we at www.thebigdebate.org and sister new site http://freedom2choose.co.uk is separate smoking rooms with full ventilation, I think both party’s would be happy then. AND IF YOU WANT TO JOIN AND HELP US WITH PUTTING ONE OVER ON THE GOVERNMENT, PLEASE JOIN US, AND YOU MIGHT LIKE TO DONATE, A SMALL AMOUNT £1, £10, OR EVEN A £1000000.________________________________________________________________________________________________
But lets get back the car emissions, you might think you have an option with them but you do not, your breathing them in all the time, it’s only because you “see” the smoke from ciga
it showed cars and homes produce lots of toxic fumes, that goes into tones, you antis get rid of your cars and homes, and I will my cigarettes, as the average family of four, with cars and homes produces “40 TONES”, have to repeat that “40 TONES” of toxic fumes each year from the petrol, diesel, electricity, gas and so forth, diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens, but do we complain about that, damn right we do not, and a person who smokers 20 per day, for a year, the toxic fumes produced , is less than a gram, so please what do you say about that, as you yourself are putting out far more toxic fumes than a smoker over a million % more, but the only problem is as I said you can’t “see” the toxic fumes, but with a smokers you can see the smoke, and some think the worst on even rely on junk science please get your facts right before you debate on the internet.Some people state that passive smoking kills 10000 people per year in the UK, but they can never name one ??? Why because no one dies or gets harmed by passive smoking, just look at all the diesel and other fumes people breath in every day, the passive smoke in like the small needle in the big haystack, it’s the fumes in the air that kill, not the little amount of passive smoke, I e-mailed the UK statistics site, BMJ, and the Government, and they could not name one person, as if there was one person, they would have hospital records that they died or was harmed by passive smoke, so where are all these people that are dieing and being harmed by passive smoking; no people are being harmed by passive smoking, and in a court of law you need evidence, this ban is based on “NO EVIDENCE” they will not get away with this. Why because there are not any people dieing because of passive smoking, as will prove below.Why not smoking you may ask, Because UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is mean
s its not tobacco SO LETS STOP BLAMING THE SMOKING AND GET TO THE TRUTH, AS BANNING SMOKING WILL KILL 10000 MORE, I WANT TO SAVE LIVES, DO NOT YOU.The real cause of cancer, and mostly lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that: tobacco smoke contains only very low% of carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens; that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns; that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways; that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades; and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more, we here at the big debate, think this is a breakthrough, and the REAL reason for the higher cancer, when there has been a natural decline in the people smoking thought the years, blaming the higher cancer on smoking, is not true, when there are over a million less smoking from the 60’s and cancer is up, is just does not add up, diesel fumes does add up.http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.htmlSome of you are saying why should we put up with other peoples smoke, you should try and work in a welding, foundry or down the pit, come on get into the real live, your breathing in so much crap in the everyday air, breathing in a little passive smoke, will make “NO” difference. SINCE THE BANS SMOKING RATES ARE “UP” IN IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND NEW ZEALAND, AND I CAN PRODUCE HARD EVIDENCE OF THIS.YOU CAN NOT NAME ONE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN HARMED OR DIED BY PASSIVE SMOKE, I will now name 671 pedestrians were killed In 2005, in road accidents in Great Britain, and about 3000 drivers, and 300,000 casualties,So lets add these number for the last 40 years, 671 x 40 = 26840 pedestrians were killed in 40 years of diving, and 3000
money should be spent on help us, and getting the ill well, with new machines for the hospitals, or saving the dieing people of the World, or a cure for all the deadly things like cancer, and with all the money they have wasted in all these years, they are now going to waste over 50 million on a smoking ban, when they can not name one person who has died or been harmed by passive smoking, total disgrace. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8130969589921300...,Just had this from someone from Ireland,Speaking from Ireland where we have introduced a hideous (P.C.) smoking ban, the experience is simple. On the basis that one pub a day closes here, then 15 a day will close on average in the UK as a direct result of your ban. Some will be affected more than others but, all will feel a drop in revenues. Day time trade will all but disappear and publicans will have to quickly diversify. The clever ones will firstly install a smoking room. This is essential for their survival. They will then need to provide proper food, entertainment, more stylish layout and things like wireless internet access. They will require special house nights that include brewery promotions and a table quiz etc. And all of this activity at their own expense may succeed in dampening the impact only - the ban will hurt business.
Over here, in retrospect, we have heard that the publicans were a loud vocal lobby who would not discuss a compromise over the ban. This is a monumental lie. In reality, this is what we smokers (and others) expected but it never materialised. Like with disabled access where publicans were told that the provision of slipways, special toilets and new seating arrangements (at their own expense) would yield a greater turnover, the promised flood of boozing non smokers never took place, wheelchair bound or otherwise.
rs: no more needs to be said? i think there is plenty more to say! first, show my your proof. Look at the NHS figures I quoted earlier- even given the worst case scenario, it is 18 times more likely that Castle contracted lung cancer from an unrelated source as he did from passive smoking. Secondly, how about naming me, let's see... 2 people who have died from passive smoking?
Surprise- I did lead some of my formative years before the ban as a nonsmoker! Smoke has never bothered me in the slightest.
However, I accept that some people ARE irritated by smoke.
That's fine, but don't try and pretend that its damaging your health, the proof is simply not there.It is an irritant, that I will concede, but that is no reason to curtail the freedoms of consenting adults in private establishments.
The NHS report I quote earlier clearly states that there is "no evidence of elevate risks to active smokers when exposed to passive smoke". So why not allow a percentage of pubs to allow smoking, on the condition that they clearly signal their smoking policy at the front door? There is absolutely no health argument in this respect.
rs (25)
Passive smoke never killed anyone. The dosage simply isn't there, it carries a smaller risk than milk, coffee and olive oil. Not one single death has ever been shown to have been caused by passive smoke, anywhere in the world and that includes Roy Castle. He self diagnosed the cause after listening to anti-smoking propaganda for years.
No-one makes you suffer from the smell of cigarettes, you have no rights to smells of choice on someone else's property.
Oh really, why should anyone believe this bull, the poll done on the smoking ban was a lie, I remember another Country forcing people to do things they did not want to either, with propaganda and social engineering. They fooled a lot of people as well. Even had bands playing to show how happy the prisoners were. I believe the media went along with it as well. God help us all!! You speak for people who have not spoken, something stinks and it is not the smokers.
EWAN AITKEN IT has been an interesting and exciting year for many reasons. One of the highlights for me was hearing that more than 90 per cent of people living in Edinburgh are happy with their quality of life, according to a MOM poll conducted earlier this year.
I'm saying nothing, my thoughts on the fascist piece of legislation regarding the smoking ban is well documented on the Evening News.
But, it has been such a successful year for the council that when they move into their new offices there are some people who have to hot-desk because they couldn't even add up the number of people who would be moving in.
Makes you so proud, doesn't it????
Memo to Ewan Aitken, the EN, Hootsmoan and SoS (otherwise known as: help, emergency, we're a crap paper!)....
Saying the word capital (or as you insist, 'Capital' - *small 'c' actually*) over and over again just makes Edinburgh look like an insecure, pathetic, small town that feels it needs to shout that it is the capital at every opportunity!
Strange that this insecurity ("we are the Capital") thing isn't seen in Dublin, London or any other real capital city...
Something to do with Edinburgh being very insecure indeedy because it is in reality, despite being the seat of government, the second city of Scotland (and knows it) and is in serious denial that the real capital of Scotland isn't far away (about 44 miles along the M8) perchance?
Poor wee Edinburgh, hemmed in by the Pentlands, Forth and green belt. The only way it can expand is upwards (high-rise, which will never happen) and destined to be forever overshadowed by Scotland's big boy, major city which has no similar constraints and has a growing population...a city who's real population is well over 1 million but its gerry-mandered boundaries make it appear less than 600,000.
Best not to think about the growing *big city* in the west, which will be an even bigger city in the future, as it will only add to MickeyMouseburgh's distress.
Being/becoming a big city is something that Edinburgh, "we are the Capital, honest" can only dream of. A similar phenomenon can be seen every day of the year in Canberra, Ottawa etc, wee pretendy 'capitals' laughed at and overshadowed by real cities Sydney and Toronto.
All the new very high-rise buildings in the pipeline for Glasgow (Scotland's future/only skyscrapers) and its now growing population can only lead to more angst and "we are the Capital" (ad nauseaum) bleatings coming out of wee Edinburgh and its parish newspapers for centuries to come.
--I didn't read any details of the MOM Poll--I did read that the executive successfully overspent by as much as 50 times what is to be spent on the City's roads.--Did I read that around 90% of people fail to give up smoking after receiving NRT from the NHS Cessation services -- I glad they don't do MOTs but we throw more and more money in their direction.--Is it realistic to think that those who will not or more especially can not give up smoking are being excluded and harrassed for political purposes and aren't the majority of these from lower-socio economic groups - I hope they've all got trams to make their lives content.--Has he told his employees in the new offices or the citizens in their new houses that these places will contain high levels of Formaldahyde (- you know - the stuff in cigarettes!) from the building materials and furnishings?I hope Ewan has kept his previous profession certification up to date - He may need it soon but this time maybe he can enjoy time with those mourning the loss of a loved one from non-smoking related illnesses and get an assistant to look after the others.
Funny - I saw almost identical pro-smoking stuff just a couple of days ago under another post.
The smoking ban is here, rightly so, and no power on earth is going to shift it. Waste of good cyberspace banging on about it.
Where are the voices about the TRAMS though? An issue which the council guy says still has to go to the Executive. Trams up and down Leith Walk are the idea of the madhouse, nothing less.
Who suggested them? Why has there been no consultation - that I can remember anyway? Why do we sit passively and wait for our roads to be dug up and lives so disrupted, AT OUR OWN EXPENSE?
Cooncil hoors. Diddy parliament hoors. Place is full of hoors.
I think I shall make a point of not reading anything which appears under Ewan Aitken's name. I had hoped the man would have a little more of the common touch than his notorious predecessor but, sadly, he is just another little man who seems completely oblivious to what people in this city are saying.
Peter (34)
Where is the "pro-smoking stuff" on this thread? I don't see anyone calling for smoking to be allowed everywhere or making up things about how good it is for you.
Exposing the lies of the anti-smoking movement is not a pro smoking message, they even admit to the lies themselves.
something about smoking and the subsequent debate seems to bring out the very worst in people.
as far as the ban is concerned, please remember: this is not a matter of smoking, it is a matter of liberty!
in five years, when chips and air fresheners are banned, you will sorely regret your position RS.
They're ruining life for everyone!
My, and I thought this was a comments page on the Councillors propaganda speech.
It's a long time since I read such self centred guff from people like Jonny "five fags" Cab. What they fail or don't care to understand is that smoking causes cancer - no debate! Why should I as a non-smoker inhale his sickening stench and my daughter whose asthmatic - and almost died from it - be threatened by ignorant self centred Neanderthals like him. To compare as he does the effects to cheese or fish just sums him up - a stinking person altogether!
Busymale (41)
Unfortunately it's not a long time since I read such bigoted self centred insults from an anti-smoker.
If you went parachuting would you expect Johnny or anyone else to lecture you about your failure to understand that the parachute might not open and call you neanderthal?
If you don't like the smell and are conned by the passive smoke myths don't enter someone else's property and moan about it.
Your daughters asthma will not benefit from the smoking ban because 99.9% of air pollutants will still be there although you may feel better about it because you can't see them. If the airline industry is anything to go by that air quality will actually get much worse as ventilation systems are not maintained, replaced or even switched on to save money. In that eventuality you may wish to congratulate yourself for supporting a move that made the situation worse for your daughter based on your self righteous opinion of smokers and your assumption that you are forced to enter someone else's property to inhale it.
41. Busymale. Why would you take your poor asthmatic daughter to a pub?
This thread seems to have been hijacked by a bunch of english smokers. This is the Scotsman guys! Haven't you guys any english sites to keep you busy?
I don't know what Mill 21,22,23 and 24 is on, but I think he needs to calm down a bit (or get out a bit more). This is a Scottish web forum and he gives us a 2,029 word english rant ending in the word 'rec', which isn't a proper word on either side of the border. Go and see your doctor mate, I suspect you might have a blood pressure problem.
Steve 42, I don't really think you get this do you? It isn't about telling people to stop smoking in bars for their own health (as in your parachute analogy), people like me enjoy the ban because it means we don't have to breath other people's smoke anymore. Most smokers where I live aren't selfish and were considerate even before the ban came in. It has really helped to deal with the few selfish ones who think they have a god given right to do whatever they want, and stuff everyone else.
So why don't you all leave us Scots to our own business and go and bore the english?
Please.
Well Mr. BobW #43, I don't take my daughter to pubs but Hotels have restuarants and even standard restuarants used to allow smoke. The presence of which meant we either had to leave, or suffer a new customer bellowing stink across our path.
I have no objection to what people do to themselves inside their own home and as for #42 I cannot see what parachutes have to do with the debate. Sums up his poverty in argument. A debate which I might add has already been lost by the introduction of this years legislation.
Ask yourselves what right do you have to waft smoke in anyones face - cancerous or not? I do accept there was a case for smoke rooms providing the doors were shut. However I have to say that in my experience the stench wafted down the corridors and anyone in a work environment was threatened, so in circumstances like that perhaps it should be permitted only in Clubs or such like.
For those who suggest "smoke rules okay", I say this to you. My father suffered from stomach cancer and for the final 6 months of his life I watched him die a slow agonising death. Unable to complete a meal, constantly throwing up and crying for God to take him away. If you idiots want to subject yourself to that fate then thats up to you. Thats why I think the description of Neanderthal is right, because it is a backward underdeveloped mentality incapable of rational thought.
Nice one mill!
My summary of this article is as follows:-
Roads: More congested and bunged up than last year with more deliberate constrictions. More un-neccessary parking restrictions and an even more unfair and unneccessarily strict means of enforcement. To much being done to slow traffic down rather than keep it moving and too much pandering to those who can't be bothered to learn about road safety.
Trams: A total waste of time and money.
Smoking ban: A Nazi state law based upon fiction and designed to victimise and oppress. Oh and Busymale, what proof do you have that your father's cancer was caused by passive smoke? I suspect none so please refrain from taking such a high-handed attitude. It's you and people like you who are not capable of rational thought.
Environmental wardens: A bunch of thugs who have been put in place in the same way that Hitler put his stormtroopers on the streets of Berlin.
Synopsis: Get rid of the labour party, all their bans, all their taxes, all their thugs, all their rediculous ideas and all their propaganda and lets start living again.
Is there now a link between stomach cancer and passive smoking? Rational thought. mmmm!
BobW, I'll let the Health Board argue the case between somach cancer and passive smoking, but whatever the outcome cigarettes kill!
I have a right to breath in fresh air, I have a right to enjoy a meal without being ruined by someone wishing to advertise their own ignorance. I have a right to go home without my clothes needing an immediate wash, and I have a right to walk into a public room free from the stench created by others.
Smoke gets up your nose, down your throat, into your lungs, and swirls around your gut. Can anyone seriously argue that is their right to do this to another person? The pro-smoking lobby is based on self interest and total disrespect towards others. And then they have the cheek to talk of impositions! Why, they've been doing it for years without asking whether we wanted their poison. Do what you want at home, just show basic consideration and stop defending the inexcusable.
The smoking lobby have been losing their case for over 20 years now, and we're now at the end game. If I could do something to stop environmental pollutants I would, but disgusting cigarette fumes is not something I should put up with from you or any other self centred irritant.
You anti's seem to suffer from some delusion that you have a right to smells of choice in someone else's pub.
Busymale; you lectured Johnny about risking his life by smoking that's why the parachute analogy was introduced. You state that you have no objection to what people do inside their own home; why is it then that you think you have a right to tell them what to do in another person's business property? It is not about the "right of someone to waft it in your face"; it is about the rights of the owner who has staked their money to provide the entertainment and smells that they see fit and everyones choice about entering or not. I have never seen anyone say "smoke rules ok"; nor do I advocate smoking or the removal of choices of consenting adults to partake in legal activities on private premises. The description of bigot is right because it is the sort of self righteous totaltarian mentality incapable of rational thought. This isn't 'the end game', antismokers have been claiming that for a 100 years, smoking trends in Ireland are almost 90 000 worse sinse the ban. Smokers will find some other avenue of social entertainment and the anti's will no doubt want to follow, claiming their right to non-existent 'fresh air'.
Tag; you are the one that really doesn't get it, the ban isn't about health at all, if it were they would have introduced a policy to reduce the 400 known indoor airborne carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke instead of a ban that removes a minor irritant. This ban will have the same effect as the non-smoking airlines; ventilation will not be repaired, maintained or even switched on resulting in a vast deterioration of overall air quality.
noone has the 'right' to be in a pub except the proprietor. it should be s/he alone who decides upon the smoking policy within, which should be clearly posted outside to allow all the asthmatics and people who don't like to wash their clothes to take a wide bearth. What on earth is your problem with that?
Steve 49
I suspect you are one of these english lot that are trying to tell us how to live our lives north of the border. Am I right?
If you were from up here you wouldn't be trying to convince us that the air in our pubs isn't much, much cleaner than it was this time last year.I trust my nose over your deluded 'science' anyday.
Steve, if you are from england, please tell us why you feel it so necessary to meddle in our affairs. Your ancestors have been doing that for centuries, isn't it time to give it a rest?
(I suspect you won't be able to [all that imperialist heritage is difficult to forget], so why not come up and have a sniff in our pubs, then perhaps you'll shut up about smoking bans making pub air dirtier.)
Tag, your showing up the Scots here, please don't be so ignorant! There is nothing 'deluded' about the science, and just because you can't smell something doesn't make it safe: take domestic gas, they have to purposely add the smell to that so you can tell when there's a leak.
Well Steve there may be some strength to the argument to allow proprietors to make the final decision but as you know, too many of them would be too freightened to stand up to "difficult" individuals and the potential for loss of income (real or otherwise) would overrule the health arguments.
As for Jonny "fag end" Cab his reference to asthmatics is derisory to those suffering from something unpleasant and not self inflicted - unlike smokers who are into self harm. And no-one suggested non-smokers don't wish to wash clothes, something else confined to your poverty stricken argument. One thing for sure is their hygiene can't be worse than a regular smoker who hasn't enough self worth to cut down on something for reasons that need no explanation. Good luck in life guys, it's your choice to make it short.
Insults notwithstanding, why are yous complaining about having to wash your clothes then? I fail to see how my comment was in any way derisory. I was merely making a point that those who wished to avoid such an atmosphere would have the ability to do so.
I don't necessarily think that if the ban were overturned tomorrow all the pubs would imediately resort to the pre-ban situation, I'm sure there are many like-minded people to you who would still patronise smoke-free establishments and propreitors who have welcomed the change. I'm not arguing for such a complete reversal, but a mutual compromise which will keep all parties happy is not much to ask.
Johnnycab 52Not me being ignorant. For information domestic gas is only harmful if it blows you up or suffocates you - it is not toxic or carcinogenic like many of those components that give cigarette smoke its smell.So how about YOU stop showing the Scots with your ignorance!
Sorry Tag, I should have said 'wilfully ignorant'. Gas was just an example. Still, a gas explosion will kill ya quicker that cigarettes will ;)
Tag,
You ought to be careful of the ignorance claims.
Gas releases many carcinogens and toxins including benzene and formaldehyde; in fact cooking one dinner puts about the same amount of formaldehyde into your kitchen air as 100 smokers simultaneously smoking.
It's strange they didn't mention that in the TV ads !
Hey Tag, let's settle this once and for all.
I propose an experiment. I'll go off to my kitchen and chainsmoke for a bit till the place is full of smoke and sit there for half an hour. You go off and do the same with gas and we'll meet back here in half an hour and compare notes.
Can't wait to find out the results.
SteveStill lecturing us poor Scots from south of the border I see.
JonnycabDoes your ignorance know no bounds? If we did that experiment I'd be absolutely fine as long as it didn't explode. You would have shortened your life slightly, which is your choice, but I'd still have suffered less ill effects so I win.
