Surely the architects of the anto smoker law would have been intelligent enough to see this coming?

Awwww, who am I trying to kid????

Now, Mikey! Shame on you for assuming legistlators, politicians and councillors have common sense!

They thought the smoking ban would mean all good little sheep would stop smoking entirely.

It's the same tack Edinburgh Council takes: if you punish motorists enough, you can make them all give up their cars.

Why do people move near pubs and then complain about the noise?

#1 Being outside for a fag doesn't mean you have to howl and shout like a load of baboons. Its not like you are shouting over loud music. Its just shouting for the sake of shouting in an attempt of saying "look at me...aren't I the big man"...pathetic.

Grow up Mikey, this problem can be settled with a discussion... its upto the hands of those pub landlords for not giving arrogant responses....they should educate their own customers.

3. Is correct. If the pubs are going to take money off people and give them drugs , they must be responsible for their drugged up beahviour.

The laminate flooring one is even worse. LOts of patent money to be made for someone who can come up with laminate flooring that isnt noisy.

The answer to this one is simple...

GET RID OF THE NAZI STATE SMOKING BAN AND REVERT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Havng said that, I strongly suspect that this "problem" has been blown out of all proportion. the article mentions smokers talking (not "howling and shouting like a load of baboons" Adam. Please grow up).

Before the nazi smoking ban came into force was it not the case that people talked as they walked by and congregated outside pubs on warm evenings? I strongly suspect that it was.

In which case the moaning minnies who are going on about this are just hooking themselves up on the "anti-smoking, anti-enjoyment, anti-everything" bandwagon. To be honest, I do not believe their complaints have any substance at all.

To prove either way is simple. Put noise monitors in the properties concerned, note the readings, then repeal the nazi state ban and note them again. I'd be willing to bet anything that there is little difference.

We do however, need to get rid of the nazi state smoking ban.

Dream on Petrol Man. It's no going back mate.

#5 do you have any substance in your brian, I don't think so. Your name suits well for making such inferior comments.

I bet the pubs would soon sort out their noisy smoking customers if they thought that their licence was at risk!

7. Why does he have a Brian and I dont.

"The service is now starting to monitor the effect of neighbourhood rows on the health of the residents involved."

If second hand noise is proved to be bad for your health, will this get banned in places outside places where smoking is banned. Will there be wardens with parabolic microphones measuring how loud you are talking and then swoop with a spot fine.

9.
I don't know, would you like to hear my view anyway.

Petroleum Head Adam does have a point, so stop ridiculing him - most pubs aren't too bad, but there are some where smokers congregate outside and aren't just loud they shout abuse at passers-by and act in a very intimidating manner - especially pubs near Tynecastle and Easter Road on a night after a match. This isn't so much to do with the smoking ban per se, I think a lot of it is simply down to the fact that a lot of folks these days are selfish sods with no manners and absolutely no consideration for others - that's our biggest problem.

Second hand smoke kills -- end of discussion!!

CBJ:

You cannot argue with the fact that if this nazi state ban had not been implimented, there would not be people complaining about:-

1. Smokers standing around talking
2. Smokers standing in doorways
3. Fag butts outside doorways
4. unofficial "parties" (including many non-smokers) taking place outside pubs
5. People like me banging on about the nazi state.

These alleged "complaints" are all on the back of the current "anti-smoking" propaganda that the pathetic labour government has been so keen to spread and thereby marginalise at least 30% of the population.

Get rid of this nazi state ban. It sucks and just serves to set people against each other. Wait til they ban something YOU like.

4 - or make slipper wearing compulsory :)

This rise in complaints is obviously a result of the smoking ban - people wanting to smoke go outside. Their friends often join them. Yes, people should show consideration for neighbours, but why buy a property close to a pub and expect a quiet life? Smokers are not going to go away - that would mean a change in the law which ain't going to happen.

I never knew smoking could raise so much money in different ways. Soon the cost of purchasing cigarettes will be free as it will be the actual act of smoking them which you will have to pay for in many ways.

Solution to outside smoking noise:
The compulsory wearing of Government approved vacuum smoking helmets with triple glazing. However I predict that this may encourage hand signal communication between smokers to evolve which may cause distress to others...
Solution:....you guessed it,

#13:

I think you'll agree that the bad behaviour around places like Easter Road and Tynecastle IS nothing to do with the smoking ban and is everything to do with a certain (minority) element that football sadly seems to attract.

This article is not about Tynecastle or Easter Road, which I why I corrected Adam over his assumption that the smokers were "howling and shouting like a load of baboons".

Some kind of "gardez-loo" intervention may be appropriate for noisy smokers.

I'm going to get really angry soon if nobody asks for my opinion.

I'll take it to the press complaints you know.

#s 5&15 peroleum head, you seem to be having a love affair with the word "nazi", you sound like you want to make smoking compulsory, i live above a pub and although i work shifts i have to tolerate the noise of the obligatory groups of alcohol fuelled banshees below my bedroom window on a daily basis. but the opinion of a hard working non smoker does not count any more.

I wonder what Ian Rankin has to say about this.

Its not got much to do with smokers , its to do with drunks and we've got loads of them in our country.

The Californian law that you can not smoke within fifty yards of a doorway should be brought in here.

I dunno Eddie but it would be the simplest thing to do. Ignore this spiteful filthy draconian undemocratic ban. Then no problems.

Smoking is a drug that kills people. It smells bad.

Theres no need to smoke.

there I've said it.

Will smokers stand outside when the winter really starts to bite?

Smoking kills ............. the sooner the better

Noise is inevitable when you have groups of people standing about and these kinds of problems were equally inevitable when they banned smoking inside.
The Kalifornian law of a 50 foot exclusion is overkill. It's not mustard gas they're exhaling, and would simply result in *really* killing off the pub trade in inner city areas (where do you go to get 50 feet from a doorway? Traffic islands?!?)

As an ex-smoker I am one of the worst people to make comment about the non-smoking ban.

Well in my opinion Scotland is far better off with the smoking ban. One can actually enjoy a night out without being subject to involintary cancer pollution, stinking your clothes out, or risk your nice new outfit being burnt by someones fag but. Yes it is much better for all except the ones in the streets committing the offences. I suppose on the other side it cant be easy going outside to smoke- means leaving all your stuff inside (drink included) ! however the health of the Scottish Nation will benefit conciderably by this ban. A tip to all you smokers - Stubb it out!!!!!!!!!!

As we say in Spain:

Caga la leche cabrones!!!! Fumar pudede matar!!!

Won't be a problem in a few years really. The noise of the trams will drown out the smokers :)

Have noise levels really increased or has our awareness of it just been enhanced with the amount of negative publicity smokers have received of late? The solution was really very simple and would have cost the public purse a great deal less - leave the decision of who smokes where to the owners of pubs, cafes etc.

which pub did Tom Ponton sell, was it in Gorgie?

'Former (i.e. 'lost his seat' ) councillor Tom Ponton, said . . . . . ' Sorry, who cares what this convicted flogger-of-alcohol-to-children and now, clearly failing publican, has to say about anything. He forgets his Lib-Dem colleagues in Parliament supported the Smoking Ban as one of the "growing number of restrictions". Can Alan Roden not find a better 'rent-a-quote'?

I agree with Bardac.

We have just become acutely aware. And why not? For over 500 years the noise, the drunks, and their pals were contained and controlled indoors, as was right and proper.

An unintended consequence, to be sure, and one that can be addressed quickly, safely and to the satisfaction of all.

Get smokers back inside, where they belong.

#35 Can Alan Roden not find a better 'rent-a-quote'?

George Foulkes phone must have been engaged when he called.

Just ban smoking and the sale of tobacco products and the problem disappears overnight.

Come on then EEN Rankin....what's on yer mind?

Another offshoot of the smoking ban is the feetysmeel inside boozers these days.

NOw there is no smoke to mask it , you can smell farts, body odour , spilled beer and a strange Feta Cheese type aroma as well.

Try it , they all smell right bad.

My thoughts are detailed here.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=810&id=220572006

Oh, and repeated here the next day if you missed it.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=810&id=223292006

Really it's bad news all round, I had to retire Rebus because of it. I mean there was no way I could work around something like this in a fiction novel was there.

I'm here all week.

Next Week , What Rankin thinks about Chickens growing Tatties doon the back of Lochend an that.

#15

You missed out:

6. Urinating behind cars (or in stairs) whilst having a fag outside a pub.

;)

A vignette:

When President Putin of Russia was here a few years ago he commented, and it was reported, that there seems to be a lot of prostitutes hanging around the outside of buildings during the day and were apparently very well-dressed. He was perplexed.

It was explained to him that government buildings have a total ban on smoking inside and so smokers are forced - sometimes in temperatures of -30C with a windchill - to pursue their addiction outside.

They even go out in that kind of weather without winter coats and only in their suits, if men, and women REALLY stand out because many of them are in tight, short dresses and stiletto heels with the snow and northwest wind blowing their foul excretions (second-hand smoke) in the faces of innocent passers-by.

It must be a real addiction to force these smokers out into such inclement conditions and the cost of a pack of cigarettes here is now approaching $10 Canadian.

I do hope some of these public servants are not depriving their children of the necessities of life to support their habit.

By the way, President Bush and the President of Mexico are here meeting with our unesteemed Prime Minister to talk about free trade, etc.

The traffic jams and street closures are irritating because there are many protesters in front of our Parliament Buildings even when they are meeting some 40 or 50 miles east of Ottawa on the Quebec side at Chateau Montebello, which is now an armed fortress.

Whenever a head of state of The Queen (who IS our head of state and Queen of Canada) visits here those of us who have the choice stay away from the precincts of Parliament Hill because it becomes a "no-go" zone and the security is formidable and frightening.

Just thought you would like to know what goes on in a capital city that is disparaged and put-down as some sort of backwater snoozeville. The facts present otherwise.

Go to The Ottawa Sun or The Ottawa Citizen to

Smokers were selfish and had a could not care less attitude about other peoples enjoyment when they smoked in the pub.
Very little has changed in that they could not care less about other people now they are smoking outside the pub. As long as the smokers are having a good time then to hell with anyone else.

More stringent rules are needed as they have shown they cannot police themselves.

"I smoke, so I can throw my cigarette butt away anywhere. I mean what do you expect me to do with it? Littering is what non smokers do. This is a necessity."
What is the difference between a smoker and a selfish person? Answer- One does not care less about the health of themself or those around them and the other is between fags.

#40 - Sheesh! Sorry I asked!

Do folk think that smokers only started going outside for a fag when the smoking ban appeared - no. In the summer I believe it's quite normal for smokers AND non smokers to enjoy sitting outside, it's only coz of the smoking ban that everyone and his dug are complaining. I can't believe (well I can actually) some folks attitudes to smokers since the ban came in force. Could someone please tell these self righteous folk that smoking is only banned in enclosed places - it is not banned in general. So if I & other smokers wish to walk along the street smoking to our hearts contents we will - there is no need for the amount of dirty filthy looks some folk now seem to think is their right to give us. I can't stand seeing obese folk stuffing their faces (outside a pub on a lovely day) but I wouldn't give them a dirtly look and say that's disgusting.

Not so long ago I was on an "official" fag break from work and this man and his little boy, probably about 4 years old walked past me - the boy, the size of it - turned to his day in and pointed out the fact that I was smoking - hello, I am allowed to smoke, but sadly that is the start of a new generation who will grow up with their holier than now attitude while I will no doubt be coughing my guts up - but that's my choice.

Also, it isn't the fags that are making the smokers loud outside the pub - I suspect its the amount of booze, which is normally what it does do.

I have to agree too - why do folk rent/buy houses that are near pubs then complain??? These are probably the same folk who buy a house beside a playground then campaign to have it knocked down coz of the noise the kids are making.

While I am on my high horse (I need a fag you see) - why when we decent folk bang into old people we apologise etc., coz if we don't then obviously we must be a bad person but when they do it nowt's said?

I do have a lot of sympathy with the residents who are having to live with the noise, I went through years of hell because of noisy neighbours and it make me very ill.
BUT, blaming the smokers is not the way to go. Smokers do not WANT to be forced outside, they are MADE to and after a few beers most drinkers do get loud, its a fact of life. All this could be resolved with air filtration systems or separate smoking/non smoking establishments.
Its not rocket science is it?

Alternatively , just move to a country where people dont have to get trashed all the time.

41,
Poor,Poor grammer.

At least its down at Lochend,We could get an independent report from Alex.

Whatever you desiree.

If petrolhead favours free choice so much then he won't mind me leaving a bucket of horse manure next to him when he's out of an evening. That would be my free choice. Or maybe stink bombs.

Anyway, who's the nazi if it's him that wants to invade my airspace. Invasion, that's what the old third reich was big on, nicht?

Seriously, if anyone's actions (especially recreational activities) genuinely annoy a significant number of other people then the best response is probably not to advocate anarchy.
I know addiction can warp one's judgement but come on guys...

Dont blame the smokers, they are only complying with this stupid badly thought through draconian law. Its pretty obvious if you put millions of people out onto the pavement you are going to get noise - DUH - What do MP's care they dont live next door to pubs. The sensible way would have been to have smoking and no smoking rooms plus ventilation but since when has an MP been sensible.

#22:

"but the opinion of a hard working non smoker does not count any more."

Neither do the opinions of smokers. Do we really want to go there??? The opinion of anyone counts for nothing nowadays unless you are "in" with the nanny-state legislators.

For the record, I certainly don't go out of my way to annoy people when I am forced outside to smoke. Yes, I may chat to others. Yes, I may have a laugh and joke. But I don't stand there shouting and raving late at night.

I'm not in love with the word "nazi" at all. I am simply referring to the nazi state smoking ban as "the nazi state smoking ban" because it IS a ban and it IS nazi state. That's just correct English!

Since this nazi state ban has been foisted upon us, it has turned people against each other. In pre-ban days, you probably wouldn't have had cause to bother yourself. You live near a pub so you say, so therefore you are by implication willing to accept a certain amount of noise and disturbance. In the days when things were civilised and you could smoke in the pub, there were no crowds hanging around outside. Now there are. Now you notice it.

With some people that is just a complaint waithing to happen---regardless as to whether the noise level has actually increased. The perception is that it has. And because of this nazi state smoking ban, the perception is also that smokers are some form of lower life form that is fair game for stick.

Getting rid of the nazi state smoking ban would solve this at a stroke.

It's most likely to be just as much the fault of drunk non-smokers who, for the sake of their social life, join the smokers outside.

According to the Scientific Commitee on Tobacco and Health (SCoTH) report from 2004, environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has a relative risk of 1.23 for heart disease and 1.24 for lung cancer. Anything less than 3, and definitely anything less than 2, is not considered as amounting to anything more than statistical irrelevancy, in epidemiological terms. These relatively insignificant risks to the non-smoker were / are by no means sufficient reason for smoking bans in the name of public health.

#50:

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Can you please explain to me how you putting horse manure or stink bombs next to me relates in any way to smoking?

If you are referring to odour then your comments are typical of the kind of gross exaggeration that we have all come to expect from an ill-informed, selfish non-smoker.

Does you handle by any chance bear any relation to your brain?

Fags smell petrolhead theres no doubt, still I like your (and others) persistence in the face of all known logic.

do any of you actually expect the smoking ban to be reversed so far that we would have smoking and non smoking pubs ?

Cmon now , man to man , tell me honestly. If the answers no , please stop going on about it.

We dont have wee cafes where people can smoke dope in this country , neither do we have ones where people can inject heroin. why on EARTH would we now have ones where people can smoke ?

I was merely stating that neither smoking or alcohol is an excuse to shout. Its an attention seeking mating call of the Ned to attract an equally loud and attention seeking Senga. And nowt to do with the smoking ban forcing people outside where most smokers can engage in conversation below the threshold of a power drill.

not rtfa

but hey its like if only they had a place to go and smoke themselves to death quietly

oh they did

och well no msps will stay near a pub so it ISNT a problem right

nanny state, complete with lack of foresight

#56:

Yes. I honestly believe that this ban will be reversed at sometime. This continual and increasing oppression cannot continue the way it is going. Sometime the bubble WILL burst. It is not only smoking, it is every area of our lives. Just read the pages of this journal if you don't believe me. There is only going to be so much that people will take.

"We dont have wee cafes where people can smoke dope in this country , neither do we have ones where people can inject heroin. why on EARTH would we now have ones where people can smoke?"

I'll tell you why in plain and simple terms. Smoking dope is illegal. Injecting heroin is illegal. Smoking tobacco is legal. See the difference?

Good luck PH , beyond 2011 all member states of the EU will have the same law (with admittedly a few differences between countries).

I cant see what you're angle would be to get it reinstated, can you ? Its not medicine , its an addictive drug and its NOT legal to take on public premises !

Still , good luck I'll have smoke with you if your crusade works.

Once more the smoker stamp their feet and bleet on about how they should have the right to inflict their nasty habit on all. What we need to do next is up the price of fags and make it more difficult for these people to afford their dirty habit.

They try like troopers to associate the smoking ban with all other rules as if the only reason the ban was put in place was to make life difficult for the normal man and woman in the street.

"Thin end of the wedge" tripe.

Forget that people for years had to put up with the smell of being near someone who smoked.
That in the bizarre world of the smoker was the other persons fault for being too near.
I am glad these people are forced out into the cold and believe the smoking ban is here to stay.

*17 you are a tw**a lot of people probabaly lived near pubs before the smoking ban was brought in get a life

Councillor Tom Ponton? Wasn't he done for selling drink in one of his pubs to children as young as 15? A real reliable source for an expert opinion, then. Geeeee!

Petrol Head and Eddie D - smokers have never had ANY regard for the opinions of non-smokers. Yet now you want the non-smoking majority to give up the greatest public health measure in a generation just so that you and the other smokers don't have to behave outside pubs? Aye right.

If smokers are criticised because they appear to be a bunch of anti-social idiots who can't even talk quietly outside a pub, they deserve all they get.

If a gang of neds was standing outside your house drinking in the street, singing and shouting the odds, you'd be the first to complain! Does the ciggie hanging out a person's mouth give them permission to be an anti-social lout? I don't think so.

What is being criticised is the anti-social behavour of the people who are smoking, not the fact that they are smokers.

The ban is here to stay. I hope that many smokers give up the addiction, and I hope that far fewer people start as time goes on. Smoking is being "de-normalised" and a good thing too.

Give up, move on and live longer.

GB

If it was a Nazi state then petroleumhead wouldn't be expressing his opinion so freely, .

Neither would he be able to vote for an pro-smoking candidate in elections. In fact he wouldn't even be voting at all.

He'd most likely either be in a camp, disappeared or doing his best to survive as a conscript in Stalingrad.

A lot of people made sacrifices most of us cannot even begin to understand to fight a true Nazi regime.

So, petroleumhead, maybe you could think a wee bit about the 20 million plus dead folk resulting from the crazy japes of the last proper Nazi regime BEFORE you start bandying the Nazi label about to justify your comparatively trivial preferences for recreational pharmacuticals.

Finally, in his last post you made much of the legality of various drugs. Smoking IS illegal too, old sausage, in public places at least.

The no smoking legislation was in the Labour manifesto and, rightly or wrongly, we voted for them - and hey - guess what? - that was the FREE CHOICE of the electorate!!

Try doing that in a Nazi regime.

They won't allow non-smoking pubs and smoking pubs to exist alongside each other as smoking pubs will ALWAYS be busier. Then the non smoking pub landlord complains about having a level playing ground because the Tobacco Taliban don't actually go to the pub that much. I used to live in a town in England (before the smoking ban) that had a non smoking pub, I used to walk by it most days *crickets chirping* tumbleweeds blow by*.

And I am an ex smoker, my wife has never smoked and she thinks it's ridiculous grown people can't make a decision without the nanny nazis having a say first.

Fatties next I'll bet.

Tog said"The Californian law that you can not smoke within fifty yards of a doorway should be brought in here."

Is that along with ,guns, intolerance, hatred and health Freakery,

Ventilation/air filtration, works for every other industry, where workers need it.
Mother-in-Law said the once vibrant pubs she went to in her home town were empty in Ireland, no doubt the tourist areas should thrive, what of the smaller community venues.

The antis will not fill them all because it is they who are in the minority.
www.ipetitions.com/tell-a-friend.html?id=8a290f71
A blanket ban was NOT, wanted by the majority
If you think this ban is wrong and you would like a voice,
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/repeal-the-ban/
Please go to www.freedom2choose.info/
The new sister site to www.thebigdebate.org/
Online petition, download petitions,
Debates, links so you can make your own judgment,
WE NEED TO FIGHT THIS TOGETHER
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,
Please help us, with your support and donations are very welcome, large or small

Very clever Mandy , get dafties to give you money, I like it.

It is not the fault of the smokers that they are forced to be outside, but is a result of this totally unfair & draconian ban.1 in 4 adults smoke, therefore 1 in 4 pubs should be smoker friendly. This would solve the problem of outside noise. Blame the government NOT the smokers!

having just returned from living in london just before the ban came into force there i have past many pubs at different times of day and night and do not see gangs of people hogging the doorway trying to have what is their human rights to do [smoke] you have all these do gooders saying prisoners have human rights murderers, muggers,rapists they should have no rights they gave that up when they committed the crime but they can smoke as much as they like why ?ause there would be riots in every prison so wheres our human rights to smoke where we want and for the mps their bars in parliment aint smoke free

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!
27th August 2007
Park your cars anywhere!
Smoke at every public Place going!
Drop litter in front of litter Wardens and laugh!
Paste posters on all official Council Building!
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!
:-D :-D

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!
28th August 2007
Diss the Council!
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!!

Mandy just back from Ireland pubs were PACKED songs were loud, craik was first class, maybe your mum needs to go later in the day

1 in 4 adults DO NOT SMOKE!!!!! maybe 1 in 6 max

#63 James (1)
I have no wish to inflict my so called dirty habit on the likes of you. All I ask for is a simple CHOICE of venue; a venue where I can smoke and the likes of you has the CHOICE to avoid it like the plague.

As for the noise from smokers outside public houses (these will also include non-smokers, no doubt), this is a natural consequence of the crass and ill-thought-out smoking ban legislation. Unfortunately, our politicians have little grasp of life it appears or more likely enjoy the feeling of power and control over the masses.

This smoking ban legislation needs amending - and fast - before things do turn nasty.

#79
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!!! :-D

Settled down now :-), But honest, life as we know it is changing at rapid speed and for the worst, with some of those "don't-do-this" "don't-do-that! "cant-do-this" cant-do-that" laws that get brought up nearly every-week now, I really do blame the Blair element, not the fag element.

Non smokers crawl back in your holes!
Listen to what is being said to you....you all think its just about smoking...well its not; its about freedom of choice!
No 72 Mario..yes people who believe in democracy and freedom to choose give money; just like WHO and ASH etc supplied the money to push a ban through that nobody wanted in the first place...
They lied to the government about shs/passive smoking and changed figures to suit their own ends!
Nobody ever died from second hand smoke; ask them to supply you with names and statistics....THEY CAN'T.....Because there aren't any..they just avoid the question like the plague!
Wake up...join freedom2choose.info it will open your eyes to the truth!

oh shut up you drug addicted morons.

#79+82 let me pick the toys up that you have thrown out your pram.

Bill you don't want to inflict your dirty habit on me but up until you were booted out into the cold you were quite happy to do so. Only now is it " lets be reasonable about this".
No lets not! Out you go if you want a fag.
Forced out onto the street is where you and your fellow (am I allowed to say fellow?) smokers should be put.
Things will not turn nasty as your lot are in the minority and you are neither ethnic nor gay.
That is the only minorities that count in todays society.

As for #82 trying to make out there is some ulterior motive is ludicrous. What the point is will be that smokers are no longer allowed to inflict their bad habit on the majority and quite right to.

Easy answer - Ban drink & close all pubs.

Problem goes away!

#36, Colin G.
Colin is only partly right. His last sentence might perhaps have been better expressed as 'Get "the noise, the drunks, and their pals" back inside, where they belong'. As long as they don't smoke while they're there, this would seem a reasonable compromise to me.

#85 steve077, cant you see, some government members are suggesting this NOW, at least in a Communist State they just tell you straight, what you-will-do-wont-do, but 'OH-NO' not over here!
They are 'VERY-SNEAKY' about how they WILL rule YOUR LIFE,
Example lets tax booze Sooo high, very few will buy it!
Not long away from the £6 a-pint now!
Not long away from the £25 a-bottle crapy-wine!

77. As an Irishman all I can say is that you probably never got outside of Dublin. Over 1400 pubs have closed, mainly in rural areas. Of those that remain, many often don't even open until after six as there is no custom.
The pub used to be the center of social life, now there is no social life, just more people out of work.
84. James your prejudices are showing through, I'm afraid you are typical of the type that gets up everybodies nose. Sad.

#72. Mario 2.0.
Mario shouldn't be too harsh on misguided little Mandy. Her futile cause might need all the funds it can scrape up, as the esteemed Nick Hogan seems to be having a little trouble with the law now, following in the footsteps of wee Shuggie Howitt. Perhaps they'll be joined by Messrs. Blow and West soon.

#26, C. Chuckles.
As the legislation introducing smoking restrictions was enacted after a free vote in Parliament, I don't understand Carlo's concept of "undemocratic". Did he intend to misuse P.H.'s favourite term of "nazi" instead. At least, his exclamation key has come unstuck at long last.

#88, John C.
My memory of driving through rural counties of the Republic five years ago, prior to it's introduction of smoking restrictions, was of many towns and villages with buildings that had been pubs, but were now closed. The same is true of Scotland, and even Pleasantville and environs has similar examples. I believe also that Eire has introduced a régime of random stopping of vehicles and breathalysing of their drivers in a bid to reduce what had been an unacceptable level of death and injuries on its roads.
Why then does John C. try to attribute all pub closures to smoking restrictions?

Petrol Head
If it were a true Nazi state, the SS would round up all the smokers and cart them off the a concentration camp. They would later move them into a shower room and gas them to death.

In other words- chose your political analogies a little more carefully

90...get a life!
a free vote by parliament you say!......the very people that are EXEMPT from this Barbaric Ban...
you call that democratic????
Hope all your favourite pubs shut down, from lack of custom; then you'll be free to persue a more healthy lifestyle...OUTSIDE...in the fresh diesel filled air!

RED-CHINA, Here we come!

At Least the communists just "tell-it-as-it-is"
OH-NO not over here, sneaky-back-stabbing, is what we get!

91. David, I think your memory is more than a bit faulty. The pubs were doing fine up until the ban. The random police checks came in very late in the game and were not the primary cause. The ban was and is.
On top of that, the number of 15 to 18 year olds smoking has gone up by 16% since the ban and Ireland has now a roaring black market trade in cigarettes. The ban has been a social and cultural disaster for Ireland
whether you like it or not.

next we wont be allowed to-have-a-Baby!

#93, tracerace.
Tr has a strange concept of "barbaric". Perhaps he wishes to draw comparisons with Genghis Khan or Taras Bulba as a change from PH's usual attempted "nazi" appellation.
I would repeat that the Health Act, 2006 went through Parliament on the basis of a majority vote, free of party whips.
My favourite pubs are going strong, and I sometimes sit outside them. The difference is that now I do it by choice, rather than as a means of avoiding selfish smokers.

#96 John, It will be like Prohibition in America once they super-tax the booze! mind you its going that way anyhow!
Don't worry about the Drug Dealers, they will be "old-hat" soon!
The NEW MAFIA, is in the making and the Council cant see it, the laugh is they are the ones that are conceiving this NEW-BABY!

Dear gentleman no. 70.

Please read my no 68 and steveks no 92 then have a wee think before you draw further comparison with National Socialism.

For example: I hope that you might indeed be a gentleman and agree that the smoking resistance and the french/dutch/belgian/norwegian/etc. resistance to their Nazi occupiers don't really compare.

I mean, you might get a wee bit ratty if you don't get a smoke just when and where you want it; they (and their families) got arrested, tortured and killed.

I do not smoke but I am thankful that I am not anti smoking.
I do not know how people can be so spiteful, to live their life with such hate towards other human beings is beyond my comprehension.

#96, John C.
My memory is less than a bit faulty, whether he likes it or not. I recollect quite clearly closed and boarded up pubs in the Republic, prior to 2005.
I did not claim that random police checks were the prime cause of falling attendance at rural pubs, merely that they may well be a contributory factor, just as easily as smoking restrictions.
Unless 15 to 18 year olds were previously able to smoke in Irish pubs, I do not understand his point.

I am astounded by some of the obtuse comments by people like petroleum head. You do realize that smoking is no longer cool right? You are not in school trying to impress the other kids. This serious health and economic issue. The thing is smoking kills end of story. Perhaps they could make a compromise with you smokers: you lose your free health coverage for any smoking related illness. You and your heirs would be responsoble for any medical bill. Of course that doesn't do anything for the thousands who die each year through 2nd hand smoke. AS an aside smoking makes you like a 3rd world country. Scotland is better than that.

#101 qohldr, good point, we ALL know to smoke is bad for health, unless you are in a room 24/7 with a smoker, I very much doubt passive smoking will harm you.
I do agree maybe if your in a pub that is very smokey, your clothes may smell a-bit when you leave.
But think about it! most pubs over the last "donkey-years", have had extractor fans fitted for this problem, so there IS NO problem!
Since or about since man has been on earth, smoking has been with us, Indians may have lived in a very concealed kinda roof-over-their-heads, and a-baby in the same place from birth and that would be nearly all-night long-so-to-speak,
Did their children all die from lung cacer?
NO, because their generations are still here today!
If some dont like it and I can see why, why not like other places did they not introduce NON SMOKING pubs and SMOKING pubs, the same goes for reasturants.
Now, that makes more sense, but Im afraid its more a swing to the comments, that BB is wanting to rule all we do!
Next it will be a SEX-BAN!
Dont anyone see whats happining?

71 Air filtration is it? Well in fact, no. When ciagrette smoke is considerd as an hazardous substance in the same way as other toxic gasses have been for years air filtration in an open office is just an invitation to a health and safety lawsuit. If you can't smoke outside in places where the climate is bad (I mean like Alaska, Canada or the like) then you're starting to talk about airlocked, hermetically sealed rooms with impressive extraction. Such rooms have to be empty and smoke free for several 'air changes' before cleaning staff are allowed to enter..

This is what a level playing field on toxicity means in practice.

84 Well, this is all reasonable and just plain good sense.

82 SO... forest and big tobacco had no funds and were just sitting back and letting this happen, eh?

93 Barabrians were only considered such by a despotic dictatorship; i.e. the Roman Empire; they were just as civilised in many ways. Indeed, none of them smoked:-) see also 98 for enlightenment.

94 What's your point? they all smoke like lums in China.

95 You niave fool. No politician tells it like it is.

96 Fair point; legalise drugs a la fags and booze and tax them.

97 If the Chinese hadn't started to control their population in what would seem to us to be a Draconian way then the entire world would be geared to feeding them in two generations.

99 Norway, Finland et al are perfectly civilised despite monster booze taxes. Nobody is zooming about the fijords with shine in their holds. Maybe lack of booze because of cost has something to do with this?

In 10 years time we will all be thankful for this "draconian law"
Our kids will be less likely to be smokers
There will be much fewer cases of lung cancer
Our health service will save Millions
We won't have to look at disgusting yellow ceilings
All the smelly folk will be outside shouting
Old guys with yellow fingers and nose hair will stay at home.

Charles Linskaill # 104,

Your argument is solid. Just because the Indians smoked and all their children didn't die, that makes it OK. Err, it takes 30 years for smokers to get cancer my friend and, even then, some of them never develop it.

And if pubs have extraction systems that mean there is no problem, why are your clothes stinking of second hand smoke at the end of the night? Or does that smoke miraculously avoid your lungs which, unlike your clothes, actually draw air towards them?

To:104. Charles Linskaill,

As long as a person dies of lung cancer after they procreate, 100% of Indians could have died but they would not have died out.

#107 Julian, OK you meant "isn't solid"
Yes maybe 30years to develop lung cancer, if you smoke, but then you ain't smoking are you? a couple off hours in a pup or where-ever, with a hint of smoke nowadays ain't the same and I'm sure there is far more toxic fumes in our air today that directly cause lung cancer, more than any if cigarette smoke, its like saying, sex is the cause of cervical cancer, FULL-STOP!
Its just NOT TRUE!
My Wife uses "body-spray" at times, I'm sure these spray's are just as bad if not WORSE and sometimes I can smell it on my clothes, but it don't mean I have been inhaling it 24/7 does it??
Next they will try to ban that as-well!

re 50 petroleumhead

Correct. You are confused.

This insight is progress on your part, well done.

This is simple but we'll play it safe.

I'll keep to short sentences to help you.

I'll also do Daily Record one-sentence paragraphs.

Unless of course you're not really confused and are only being obtuse to try and annoy me.

It's a a desperate defense often used by people who are aware that their arguments are fallacious.

It's a bit like a kid shouting, "Aye you're wan too!"

1) Because of your damaged smoker's sense of smell you are only dimly aware of how badly smoking stinks.

2) You perception of odour is thus liable to be faulty and thus of no import in this argument.

3) It was until recently your choice to annoy me with its smell in public.

4) So therefore why should I not be allowed to annoy you in any public place with any smell I choose.

(OK I chose horse manure because I thought the image amusing, but if you've no sense of humour...)

5) But what if I decided to fart next to you and your party. It's something most of us (eventually) can't help and is a natural process.

6) Or perhaps I could use epic quantities of grated Parmesan which has the same odour as puke (same chemical as puke, you see).

7) You think it's a different thing but it's not, it really isn't - the source isn't important - the smell is.

8) FYI: cigarettes smell worse than sh1t.

9) Public smoking was like a kind of social bullying; and the bully always takes time to accept his untenable position. (You'll get there, be strong...)

If you can't see my exceedingly simple points then YOU shouldn't presume to tell ME how intelligent I am.

Perhaps then the nicotine has really shrunk the small blood vessels in your brain; perhaps you've had a mini stroke or two and not noticed it.

I was, however, sufficiently well informed not to be so gargantuanly stupid to take up a

"If some dont like it and I can see why, why not like other places did they not introduce NON SMOKING pubs and SMOKING pubs, the same goes for reasturants"

Charles Linskaill, there was a scheme about 5/6 years ago where licencees chose smoking, non-smoking or part smoking and put these notices up - needless to say most chose fully smoking, lo and behold, a few years later a full smoking ban comes in, Freedom of Choice as long as it's their choice!!

Charles # 109,

Actually I meant "is solid". It's called sarcasm.

The point about 30 years is with respect to your Indian argument. The Indian's wouldn't have died out if passive smoking killed their children because the effects of smoking take 30 years to manifest themselves. Therefore the children would die after they had procreated. Understand now.

On the point of other toxins in the atmosphere, these are mainly outside, the same place that smokers are now banished to. Passive inhalation of these toxins is a hundred times worse inside.

And, as for your point about your wife's deodorant; apart from no known link to cancer, a whiff of that is hardly in the same league as 5 hours in the pub standing next to a crowd of smokers.

#112 Julian, if you were spending 5 hours in a pub at a time enough, enough times for passive smoking to affect you, I dont think the passive some would kill you, it would be your 'pickled-liver'

#113 D/heid
The more I read your posts, I become more and more convinced that the Chinese authorities should 'Clamp Down' on the re-emergence of 'opium dens' certainly by tour of your past comments there is something that is not quite right with you son.
However! I wish you well in your struggle and believe me 'I do try too understand your lunacy' sometime, pls however! I hope you may also try to understand those simple words such as 'tolerance' and freedom of expression . Clearly your comments have no bearing whatsoever on the article itself, your rants are very sadly, very boring, and quite predictable.

#110 slow neutron..
oh! dear, or is it deary me?,,,, just so sad,,oh! dear. I despair.

#110 Slow Neutron

I'd hazard a guess and state that you are probably one of those chaps who tucks his shirt into his underpants.

Of course I am sure that all these non-smokers have absolutely no vices of their own, have never driven on public transport, live in a grass house somewhere and have never, no never done anything in their lives that might have affected another human being.....nope, I guess you are all rosy!!!

What did joke and his pathetic little band of do as i say diddy's think was going to happen.
Did these idiot politicians think that everyone was going to stop smoking just because they forced through a
bullying law of wich a majority of 73% of the public did not want.
Forcing smokers on to the streets was always going to cause trouble .
Bad laws don't work and this is a bad law.
People deserve choice not dictated to on how to choose whether to smoke or not . These scum who voted on the ban have their public funded pensions invested in tobacco firms, joke p*sses off to malawi
tobacco is the country,s biggest earner. WHAT A BUNCH OF HYPICRITICAL WASTERS.

#117, Brendan.
Perhaps Brendan is thinking of Superman?

#119, Mr.Chips.
Conversely, good laws work, and this is a good law for most.
If Jack McConnell and his party are no longer available to be Chippie's whipping boys, perhaps he could try his luck with Alex Salmond and the Greens?

Theres nothing hypocritical about taking taxes raised by tobacco sales whilst trying to get the populace to cut down on one of the most addictve drugs with the highest mortality rate.

But then again cold logic and human beahviour doesnt go hand in hand.

Just you wait 20 years until you are legally limited on the amount of electricity you can use , for the common good.

People are daft.

#118, Pickleskin25.
Apart from being a bit befuddled where he presumably meant to say "have always ridden on public transport", Ps25 is beginning to get the overall picture through his tinted spectacles. May he continue to see clearly.

1 - reverse the smoking ban

or

2 - stop complaining

#123. Well it's she actually, but thanks for that and pointing out my grammar mistake...yes mistake, oh what a concept.

Just trying to point out that every person that has made a comment here about how bad smokers and their actions are, and how it has an effect on their existence is a hypocrite.

Everyone in this world is guilty of doing something that contributes to the ill health of society and blowing off about one group of people i.e. smokers is not going to make them any less guilty. I am sure that if you really think about it, you will soon realise all the things you are doing that contribute to the environment that we are living now.

Its like a daschund complaining about having wee legs.

Typical Junkie behaviour and non logic.

#67: Glibie:

"Yet now you want the non-smoking majority to give up the greatest public health measure in a generation"

...and that is just where you are wrong. Completely, utterly 100% WRONG!!!

The nazi state smoking ban has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH.

So-called "passive smoking" exists only in the minds of those selfish, opinionated, self-righteous pompous fools who hold the opinion that because THEY don't smoke, no-one else should have the right to.

This is all about freedom of choice. Just wait till they ban something YOU like.

#20, Paul Voltaire.
I trust that Paul is not advocating the chamber pot recycling solution, as the very mention of this option tends to drive old Stef more than a little potty.

#110:

Thank you for your comprehensive attempt at explanation. It is a great pity that to a word, it is rubbish.

"As a non-smoker perhaps I was aware of the sensitivities of other people and you didn't give a chuff. Funny that, eh?"

Firstly, you are not aware of the sensitivites of other people. If you are then you choose to ignore them.

Secondly, although I may not be "sensitive", I am aware, and fully support, the concept of FREEDOM OF CHOICE. You clearly do not otherwise you would be arguing for separate rooms/pubs for smokers. Like I say, waith till they ban something YOU like.

#127, PH.
PH is bashing away on his same old Nazi tambourine tune, or should that be Glockenspiel?
He is still guilty of muddled thinking, in that no one is denying him or other smokers his right to continue smoking, simply to restrict where it may take place.
His ilk's only interest in so-called freedom of choice is that he may choose to be free to do what he likes, when he likes, and where he likes. If his selfish idea of freedom is compromised, then he'll squeal like a stuck pig, as always.
I trust he notes the spelling of "compromise" for the furtherance of his education.

#125, Ps25.
Confusing "never driven" with "always ridden" is making a nonsense of the argument, rather than a mere grammatical error.
Perhaps my experience of constantly having to second guess Mandy V.'s train of thought in her contributions has stood me in good stead in deciphering another female faux pas.
However, Ps is guilty of reverting to the usual flawed ploy of pro-smokers of referring to others' inadequacies or failings, rather than admit to the weakness of smokers' selfish arguments. Shame on her.

#131 David. 'always ridden' would have made more of a nonsense than you are suggesting my mistake had made.

You may do better to put your own VALID points across rather than chastise the views of everyone else!!

132 articles on this subject, I can't understand why the press keeps flogging this dead horse and whipping up more bigotry. It saddens me that so much ignorance and polarisation are displayed on this matter and the antis keep their childish taunt of we won we won, live with it. They may have won this battle but the war is not over, it could be with tolerance, understanding, and consideration but I doubt that is ever going to come from the control freaks of the anti brigade. They are now guilty of the same charges they levied against smokers and used as evidence for the ban. So tell me now what it feels like to be regarded as selfish, intolerant, and inconsiderate. You know nothing of magnanimity in victory.
To the issue raised in the article as opposed to the irrelevent tirades of hate from the sheep. If noise outside pubs has increased, what did anyone really expect. Those who are forced to come outside to continue conversation will still speak at the higher level they would inside a busy pub. They probably
have to converse more loudly to be heard above the traffic noise, and the condemnation of the self righteous anti smokers. What's the solution? Ban smoking within a given distance of pubs, ban talking
within a given distance of pubs? Then of course there is the point of even more increasd noise on match days, wasn't that always the case, and what do you want to do about it? Ban Football? Ban smoking football fans from going to the pub after a match? or the big catch all ban pubs, ban alcohol
then all you control problems are solved.
Perhaps not you may grasp the fuility and crass
stupidity of bans in general.
As to us smokers I am on a campaign to get all smokers using the product I do, which allows me to
continue my pastime anywhere I like legally, at half the cost annually, and more healthily than ordinary
cigarettes. It also means that I am not forking out vast somes of money to bolster the Exchequer and the pro

#132,Ps25.
Ps has either had a good lunch or wiped her glasses, and hence changed her view. As you don't drive on public transport, what part of "always ridden" is she having problems with? Would she have preferred "rided"?
If she cares to troll, sorry trawl, back through this and many other smoking issue threads, she will be aware I have made many points. Whether she considers them to be invalid (lower case will suffice) or not is a matter of her freedom of choice, tempered by her personal bias, of course.
Where people express a contrary view to myself, I always feel free to counter by expressing my own in this non-Nazi state.

Smoking ban has been great for Ireland? Please bear in mind that this article wwas written in April 2005.

But Ireland's experience does demonstrate that some staff will probably lose their jobs. According to the Licensed Vintners Association, which represents 95% of Dublin publicans, 2,000 mainly part-time jobs have been lost in the Irish capital since the ban.

The Vintner's Federation of Ireland, which represents more than 6,000 rural publicans, has more alarming figures. "According to recent Central Statistics Office figures, 7,600 jobs were lost in the hospitality sector in 2004 - while increases were experienced in every other sector."

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2005/04/21/201199/w... as

#133, Arthur.
Traffic noise "late at night". Where is this? Piccadilly Circus?
Having patiently trawled through Arthur's lengthy contribution, he and other smokers may be pleased to know I have no problem with his electronic smoking, if, as I understand it, no tobacco fumes are exuded.
If, for this or any other reason, everyone in the U.K. stopped buying conventional tobacco products, Darling Alistair would simply replace the income with other forms of duty or taxes, stealth or otherwise. I have no issue with that. Three cheers for Arthur! Other smokers take note.

For all the drivvle you spout to make yourself look like you are more intelligent than everyone else, your really aren't getting the whole 'have ridden, always ridden' thing are you.

I am bias, you are bias, everyone is bias!!

136) You may well take issue when you have to pay
an equivalent minimum of 9p in the pound extra income tax. There is a limit to the revenuue govt
can raise by the back door.

#138, Arthur.
I may well not. If Arthur has a comprehension problem, may I restate that if all of the U.K. stopped smoking to-morrow, and HMG had to fund their contribution to the exchequer from other sources, be it income tax, VAT, or other excise duties, I would have no issue. It may be of course that all that money expended on tobacco would be spent elsewhere, and the Government would raise the necessary shortfall in a different way. As they say, winners and losers.

#137,Ps25.
I can only appear more intelligent than other contributors if they permit it.
No, I don't follow the "whole 'have ridden, always ridden' thing". If Ps25 can talk me through it slowly, I'll try to keep up.
I assume she meant "drivel" and "biased" in her posting, as the word bias is a noun.

#135. A-h f.
I would agree that this article is somewhat outdated, and noted that all did not appear to be doom and gloom according to it. On the contrary, the old winners and losers scenario seemed to reappear.
I believe the population of Eire to be about 8m. Assuming the working popn. to be about 6+m. job losses of 7,600 would equate to about 1.2 per thousand, or 0.12%, scarcely a significant figure, particulary if "increases were experienced in every other sector." If redundant bar workers are moving into other employment sectors, we seem to be returning to "winners and losers" territory, would A-h f, not agree?

139) it is not my comprehension or indeed intelligence which is in question here.
here are the figures
from my own research on the treasury website 25% of the population still smoke
from that 25% my research showed that
the treasury raises some 8.5 billion in tax and duties on tobacco. Research by others showed that if you add in corporation tax
and revenue from tobacco workers, returns on tobacco investments, and tax on profits from tobacco sales the final figure could approach 20 billion.
V.A.T. is charged on most goods and services at a flat 17.5%, and that is E.U.
directive, thus the lost revenues could not come from that source.
If no one bought tobacco, about 10,000
workers would become benefit liabilities and not be contributing to the exchequer.
So on the face of it your model is fairer in that the tax burden would be spread across 24 million on the workforce instead
of 15 million smokers so at present the situation is a minimum of 8.5*10^9/15*10^6 = 566GPB per smoker per annum.
that would become
8.5*10^9/24*10^6 = 354GPB per worker
per annum.
This suits us smokersr admiably as we would easily be saving at least twice that with my solution, or at least 4 times if we gave up all together. Non smokers would have to find that sum as they have nothing to set it against.
That is of course the minimum position, and I would call that a massive financial own goal against non smokers.

I am a non smoker. I hate the smell and the look of people when they are inhailing their fags as well as land up with a sore throat being around smokers.

If I thought something that I enjoyed had a serious affect on someone elses emotional, physical or mental health I would do my best to avoid this, even if it ment giving up something that i enjoyed.

As smokers you have no idea how distressing it is to be in your presence. the health imlpications as well as the revoltling smell. we really are not being kill joys. This seriously affects our health

143) Your personal likes and dislikes are not the point of the article. I hate chewing gum,
I hate spitting in the street, i hate intolerance, so what. Please be relevent, this pont has been made and replied to add nauseaum. If you can't talk to the point don't post.

S.A.M.
Don't listen to Arthur. The article at the top was about noise caused by people smoking outside pubs. Arthur didn't seem to realise that when he produced his Heath Robinson pseudo-economic thesis at 142. No mention of noise or nuisance there at all.

If moving away from the point of the article is good enough for Arthur, then it's good enough for you too my friend.

#142, Arthur.
Without querying the detail, I broadly follow the logic of Arthur's argument, but he overlooks one or two points.
The scope of VAT and other taxes can be broadened, so that additional revenue would not necessarily come from "workers" alone.
As workers and smokers are not two disparate groups of people, the assumed extra £354 per worker would also fall on the shoulders of smoking workers. Unless smokers bank all their savings of, say, £112 p.a., that money would drift or even swill back into the economy, engendering further income for the exchequer.
So, the extra costs to non-smoking workers might amount to no more than, say, 2 or 3% of their net income, not an insurmountable figure to absorb, in comparison with mortgage repayment increases arising from higher interest rates.
Additionally, improvements in health and productivity of "workers" and others would give more savings to the economy.
I don't follow Arthur's logic about double and quadruple savings for smokers. Perhaps he could clarify.
As I said at #139, I have no issue with smoking disappearing in the U.K. Winners and losers again.

#144, Arthur.
I thought the point of the article was the nuisance caused by inconsiderate, loud, and thoughtless drinkers, smokers or otherwise. If they can't make less noise, they merely invite criticism, or even stronger action as suggested at #20.

John C, it is the rural areas that suffer, the sort area that you do not need to drive to get home, I have only been once, it was a few years ago, but he pubs I remember were vibrant and fun, yes they could have done with ventilation. But they were packed.
I have to say, I will not be making the visit again, but I do have very fond memories of Waterford and Dungarven.

Many tolerant non-smokers also like to be with their friends still, even if it is outside, so it is not just the smokers is it who are noisy.

145) You are of course quite right I should not have moved of topic in correcting someone much like yourself who has buried his head in the fiscal sand. in that regard you both are in denial, something you are all to quick to accuse smokers of being. I repeat in forcing smokers on to the street without banning them from talking whilst there, what else did you really expect. You can't have it both ways, something else you accused smokers of before you won your pathetic little ban.

Mandy,

I'm quite happy to accept that there are a number of artificial chemicals which are carcinogenic. Ban them too if it is proven they are dangerous to others. But your point is illogical. You come out vociferously against all these chemicals highlighting the dangers yet come out in favour of allowing the biggest carcinogen of all to be blown into the air of our indoor public places.

Thankfully, your viewpoint has virutally no chance of prevailing. All developed countries have either imposed a ban, are about to do so, or are considering it. This legislation will not be reversed. I'll give you odds of 50 to 1.

Charles,

5 beers in 5 hours at the pub will probably still leave my liver in the clear. I've been doing it for 20 years twice a week. Now if you did that every night of the week...well, that's a different story;-)

Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies, and as such, they are not properly laws at all. Go to http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&f... to download a booklet on how and why to fight the ban.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

#149, Mandy V.
I would have thought it was in rural areas where people felt the need to drive home, because of the lack of alternative public transport, unless you have a jogging cart. Mind you, even being in charge of one of those whilst sloshed will tend to bring you to the attention of the gardi.
I don't think the original complaint was that smokers were causing all the din, rather inebriated loudmouths, be they smokers, tolerant non-smokers, or any other type of inconsiderate oaf.

#152, Julian.
Charles L. at #114 was rather presumptious in inferring that Julian was even drinking alcohol. He could have been on J2O's or even serving behind the bar.
But then, the smoking lobby are often apt to jump in feet first, and reflect afterwards. Perhaps the nicotine doesn't hone the mind as much as is claimed.
It may be, of course, that Charles doesn't even smoke, but that his reasoning might be affected by consuming some other substance.

#150, Arthur.
The only thing that can compel smokers on to the street is their sad addiction to nicotine.
They are not then forced to observe some vow of silence like an order of monks, but neither should they carry on, late at night, behaving like a horde of chattering monkeys or baying baboons.
It would also appreciated if they could deposit their butts, peanut shells, banana skins or other detritus in the receptacles provided for this purpose.
That way others could indeed have it both ways from this wonderful, far-sighted restriction, namely a cleaner atmosphere (and streets), together with a good night's sleep. The buzzword for this improved environment is what's known as a "double whammy".