Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 12th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Cloud hangs over hotel's cigar shacks



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 January 2008
AFTER initially falling foul of Edinburgh's licensing laws, the £10 million Hotel du Vin development is now facing a headache from Scotland's smoking laws.
The historic College of Physicians laboratory on Bristo Square is currently being transformed into a plush new hotel, offering fine wines and Cuban cigars.

One of the hotel chain's main selling points are its unique "cigar shacks" – comfortable sm
oking lounges in a heated outdoor shelter.

However, the crowded Old Town architecture and the laboratory building's enclosed courtyard have meant the Edinburgh team has now had to return to the drawing board. Before the UK-wide smoking ban, Hotel du Vin – a sister company of the Malmaison group – became known for hosting lavish cigar parties in its bistros.
STUBBED OUT: Scottish law prevents the hotel from opening a shack like this one at its branch in York
STUBBED OUT: Scottish law prevents the hotel from opening a shack like this one at its branch in York


When the smoking laws were introduced, hotel bosses came up with an innovative design for a partially-walled shelter which employs "warm air curtains" at the open end to keep it cosy.

But it has now emerged that the existing cigar shack design would not be suitable for Edinburgh.

Stephanie Briggs, director of interior design for Hotel du Vin, said: "The courtyard is completely enclosed on all sides and is quite compact, to the extent that it's less of a courtyard and more of a meeting place.

"For this reason none of our current designs would be appropriate as they would obstruct the view of the courtyard from the overhanging rooms.

"We could probably still install one of our original shacks in the courtyard and remain within the smoking regulations, but we decided it would be better to do something bespoke specifically for the Edinburgh hotel."

Whatever the design, the cigar shack is likely to include features such as underfloor heating, wall-mounted plasma screens and leather armchairs for patrons to enjoy their stogies in comfort.

In a further complication, city planners have now said that as there was no provision for a smoking shelter in Hotel du Vin's original planning application, any further additions will probably have to be cleared through them.

The hotel firm has said it will submit its new designs in due course.

A spokesman for anti-smoking campaigners Action on Smoking Health (Ash) said: "As long as any proposed shelter stays within smoking regulations and does not present a passive-smoking danger to staff or customers, we would not have any objection to a cigar smoking shelter being built within the courtyard."

Two weeks ago, hotel bosses breathed a sigh of relief when the city's licensing board overturned the controversial original decision to block its drinks licence bid.



The full article contains 430 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 January 2008 1:10 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 12:21:32
Honestly, if the nazis can't get them for drinking, they'll get them for smoking.

Why don't people use their brains? These are SMOKING SHACKS. People will go there to SMOKE. Non-smokers are of course also welcome but whingers are not.

The smoking ban should be repealed in any case.
2

Choose a nameDr_Joseph_Phd,

Tynescos 30/01/2008 12:23:15
Are they havana laugh?
3

Randan,

30/01/2008 12:44:55
#1 That's right PetrolHead, repeal the smoking ban, cos there's no evidence that smoking causes any health issues.
You prize t00l!
Another day, another avoidence of reality in order to make one of your ridiculous points!
4

Jakey Rowling,

30/01/2008 12:52:04
Will they serve puffer fish for the Japanese visitors.
5

Statsman,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 12:55:51
3 Randan

What are you going on about? Smokers in a smoking shelter are hurting you how exactly? Even if you believe in the pathetic cooked up junk science surrounding environmental tobacco smoke, it still doesn't make any difference to you in a smoking shelter where only smokers are likely to go.


6

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 13:11:12
Ther's no point in trying to reason with him Statsman. He's resorted to insults which means that he looses the debate by default.
7

Finbarr Saunders,

30/01/2008 13:12:50
I don't like the idea of these "cigar shacks".

Smokers should be made to stand outside in the rain and the cold.

Giving them shelter is just encouraging them to smoke.
8

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/01/2008 13:18:54
#6 The point still stands. You argued that the ban should be lifted, and yet again your only justification is your desire to do whatever you want with no mind to the consequences of others.

Note to #5, note the difference between criticising #6 for his desire to repeal the ban and criticising people who want to use a smoking shelter. Neither #3 nor myself have done the latter, just the former.
9

IainA,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 13:40:44
"Hotel's smoking shelter design didn't suit location, hotel adopting slightly different design."

Woah boys! Hold the front page!
10

Statsman,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 13:45:03
8 Duncan in Edinburgh

The ban was never based on science. It was based on cooking figures and continually repeating a lie. He has every right to say it should be lifted. He shouldn't be abused for saying so.
11

,

30/01/2008 13:48:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Randan,

30/01/2008 13:51:47
Statsman - 'pathetic cooked up junk science surrounding environmental tobacco smoke'

This will be the evidence that has been backed by hundreds of scientific investigations that the smoking industry tries to hush up?!?

Ignoring the scientific facts does not make a good point, it just creates a smokescreen (no pun intended) for people like you to use as pointless arguments.

I'm all happy for cigar shacks to exist, I don't care, but your comment is clear cack.
13

Jane Plane,

30/01/2008 14:00:04
Statsman - smoking shelters are not just for smokers. You are forgetting that non smoking staff will be clearing glasses and ashtrays from the area. Non smoking staff have the right to work in a smoke free environment. Thats why the law was passed in the first place.

It irrelevant whether or not you agree with smoking or not, you cannot subject people to things that the law is supposed to protect them from.
14

Gothic Rose,

30/01/2008 14:04:10
The whiff of an aromatic cigar, lovely:)
15

I love to eat Sellotape,

30/01/2008 14:17:38
Comment number eleven receives ten points for the use of the phrase "infantile retard".


16

Statsman,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 14:23:41
12 Randan

What are these 'scientific facts'? Do you even know what epidemiology is?

I suggest you look at my moniker and look at what the nature of the scant evidence is before you rant and foam some more.
17

Randan,

30/01/2008 14:32:57
Statsman, the health of barworkers has improved significantly since the smoking ban, so it doesnt matter what keech you come out with about the environmental impact of smoking, you are just a Flat Earth Society goon who will not except the facts.

There are lots of things that are difficult to prove beyond doubt, that does not mean that they are not true.
I used to believe that passive smoking didnt hurt anyone, but eventually I had to admit to myself that I was wrong. One day you may too.
18

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

30/01/2008 14:52:14
Hello, I'm a pompous, self-serving, arrogant bore with a half-brain full of trenchant opinions utterly unsubstantiated by fact. It looks like I'm welcome here.

19

Statsman,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 14:54:18
17 Randan

You're just saying things again and making out they are 'facts' and then foaming some more.

I am not a 'Flat Earther'. I am someone that likes science to be carried out correctly and honestly.

I am not speaking from a position of regurgitating the latest ASH or FOREST press release. I am speaking from the point of view of someone that does this for a living.
20

Randan,

30/01/2008 15:30:26
Statsman

You keep going on about foaming?!? I suggest you look at yourself for that.
So inform us mere mortals how harmless cigarettes are then?
21

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

30/01/2008 15:33:10
18 Welcome.

I recently visited Spain - a nice part of Spain it was too, not the kind of part of Spain any of you lot would be welcome. One that doesnt begin Costa.

Anyway , there they have smoking bars/cafes and non smoking bars/cafes.

Makes perfect sense to me. however , the difference between dummyheed up there and me is that I know Scotland will never change or repel its smoking law and I'm old enough and just about grown up enough to accept it.

I like a wee camel light occasionaly but I will not greet about my RIGHT to do so as my need to consume drugs is nor very high up on a list of human rights.

Now grow up Petrolhead.
22

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 15:47:04
All you antis out there (Duncan and Randan in particular)...

Smokers were NEVER forcing you to smoke.

Passive smoking does not exist.

Market forces should determine whether or not a bar is smoking only, totally smoke free or a mixture of both.

Just what is your objection to people smoking in one bar, whilst you enjoy a pint in the bar NEXT DOOR which is non-smoking? Do you really, honestly believe that you would even smell the smoke from next door, let alone have it do you any harm? If you do then you are madder than I first thought.

Please. Get a grip.
23

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

30/01/2008 15:50:24
22 - NONE NO OBJECTION

BUT I AM WISE ENOUGH TO REALISE THAT THE LAW WILL NOT BE CHANGED IN SCOTLAND .

ARE YOU ?

THANKS
BOB
24

Randan,

30/01/2008 16:03:47
#22 Petrolhead.
Prove passive smoking does not exist. Show me all the evidence you have.
Unfortunately I think until it is proven to be safe we should send all smokers up Ben Nevis if they want a puff.
We know smoking is dangerous, so lets ban it until we have proof it is DEFINITELY safe ot be around a smoker, then we will allow it.

Why don't we do it this way for a change?
25

Georgy Pordgy,

Outside 30/01/2008 16:08:44
Ahh... the unmistakeable whiff of the finest Cuban wind- up
26

Xena - Warrior Princess,

30/01/2008 16:10:34
If it so dangerous, why is it legal? Sheer Hypocrisy. Randan are you in government? it's just "we will allow it" comment.
27

Disgruntled Black cab customer,

30/01/2008 16:11:43
#22 what difference is it to you if smokers want to go to a hut to smoke? No-one is asking you to go in fact they'd prefer it if you crawled back to the hole you came from and stayed there.

Who's next, to be cast out of society, car owners, obese people, alcohol drinkers?
28

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

30/01/2008 16:20:05
27, all of those are fine by me.
29

Disgruntled Black cab customer,

30/01/2008 17:10:29
Thats why we have a Nanny state Mario becuse of people like you.
30

Iain fae Elgin,

London 30/01/2008 17:17:05
#3 randan...

I think you're allowed to say 'tool' you know.



There, I told you.

Anyhoo, as a smoker I'm happy with the ban. Hated going to a pub or restaurant and smoking when I didn't want to.

And rights? How about some responsibilities first?
31

grafiger,

30/01/2008 17:19:31
As a non-smoker who abhors the present smoking ban and has many smoking friends, I would recommend reading “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12, entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007".

This contains plenty of evidence which might colour the opinions expressed by the ardent anti-smokers amongst you.

It might even help to water down the vitriol that seems to have crept into this forum.

Additionally, you might, or might not, like to read the original findings of research sponsored by the World Health Organisation (WHO) into passive smoking which they quickly withdrew and attempted to bury since the results were not that which they wanted. These findings can still, to the embarrassment of the WHO, be viewed on the www.

Remember politeness and respect costs nothing and should be applied equally to both sides of the debate.
32

Agent 99,

30/01/2008 18:00:36
[22] Market forces should...

Just like market forces "regulate" the population of car users with fatal crashes. Same thing right?

As for the article: How they have the temerity to call it a "design" god only knows. I once had a joiner who built stuff like that. Shoogly poles and all, or is that what an architect calls a feature?
33

Euan,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 18:03:19
The discussion needs to move away from whether passive smoking is a real danger or not.

The fact is that this hotel is going to have to accomodate smokers in some sort of outside 'shed' or whatever.

I wish them all the best with this exciting new development, but I think what Hotel du Vin should be more concerned about is the potential noise their smoking guests will make out in the courtyard and how many noise complaints they will recieve from locals as a result.

Even a small group of people talking will resonate around the inner buildings and create possibly irritating levels of noise to nearby residents..
34

Agent 99,

30/01/2008 18:03:29
[31] "Remember politeness and respect costs nothing..."

Au contraire, old boy. All that extra typing and pussyfooting about cost time and means you never get to the point.

And yours was...?
35

Rollo Tommasi,

30/01/2008 18:10:47
Funny how this story is being made out to be about smoking laws preventing Hotel du Vin from opening their smoking shack, when their own spokesperson says their standard shack would probably comply with the law!

Also funny is how pro-smokers like Petrol Head (22) believe that, unless the dangers of passive smoking are proven irrefutably and beyond any possible doubt, it "does not exist". What kind of assessment of evidence is that?

Grafiger (31): I hope the evidence in Booker and North's book is more accurate than your claims about the WHO study. These claims were fabricated by the tobacco industry. WHO published their report and stood by its results. Try these for supporting evidence:
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/who_inquiry.pdf (pages 193-227)
36

Captain Fantastic,

Anywhere but here 30/01/2008 18:24:57
A friend of mine is facing imminent death from lung cancer as a result of smoking. Anything to discourage this filthy habit is fine by me.
37

Finbarr Saunders,

30/01/2008 18:38:23
#22 - Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head - "Passive smoking does not exist"

Have you been on the whacky baccy?
38

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 19:10:58
#13 Jane Plane
Propaganda ! How do you know they'll be employing "non smoking staff" for these jobs ?
Maybe they'll employ chain smokers. (Try lateral thinking).

39

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 19:40:26
#36 Captain Fantastic
Both of my parents died (in their mid 70's!) due to smoking related diseases. They both smoked heavily most of their lives, and given all the suffering and misery endured, both during and after the war, they didn't consider the dangers of smoking much of an issue. Indeed it was one of their few luxuries.
I think that what most people are objecting to here, is not the dangers of smoking, but suppression of tolerance and freedom of choice.
40

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 19:57:15
p.s.
My Father fought for freedom to do what you want. Unlike Randan, who should look to Orwell's Big Brother for his medal.
41

expat33,

le teich 30/01/2008 19:58:51
I really enjoy a good healthy discussion, an exchange of points of view. People trying to find "truth" by comparing information and opinion...........
42

Duncan in Edinburgh,

30/01/2008 20:10:21
#39 You wilfully misuse the concept of freedom of choice. To understand how, please exercise your freedom of choice by choosing to drive at 90mph on the wrong side of the M8.
43

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 20:14:38
#41
Well said. Now pi$$ off pseud.
44

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 20:30:40
#42 Duncan
It wasn't wilfull.
For one thing you're introducing a totally different (and silly )parallel. My parents never drove and motorways weren't invented. They smoked, that's all. And so did nearly everyone else.
45

James (1),

30/01/2008 20:37:03
#39 Junkies think the same way. "I'm not harming anyone" and as petrol heid says passive smoking does not exist and it is really just annoyance you are experiencing. SO, Lets allow all these people to do whatever they want and if they are annoying anyone then lets allow them to tell those people to move on.
No, its much easier to ban this filthy habit. Hooray for the smoking ban! Long may it continue!
46

James (1),

30/01/2008 20:39:42
#22 Just because you do not believe passive smoking exists does not mean you are right!
You do not need to believe in gravity but it exists!
47

David from New Mills,

U.K. 30/01/2008 20:41:01
When I came cross this thread, I thought no one would be interested, apart from a few residents of Edinburgh, close to this proposed new hotel.
However, as Rollo at #35 points out, the likes of Petrol Man and grafiger are keen as always to seize any opportunity to tout their own ephemeral pro-smoking agenda. Perhaps they'll come to recognise the reality of smoking legislation as the years tumble by.
Good to see Rollo's and Duncan's postings again, as well as those of, new to me, Randan.
No doubt Petrol Man, like wee stef, Colin Gee, Belinda C., Mandy v.,chas w.,Carlo R. et al will all grimace at this posting, but can any of them tell me where the smoking protesters are going, apart from down the tubes?
48

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 21:06:01
James (1)
Why the antagonism ?
I'm trying to explain a mindset ( modern word), that you may be too young to comprehend.
It's a generation thing and may take a while to go away, but it will eventually. (I used to smoke 40+ a day but don't any more).
Bullying is worse than smoking and doesn't yield results.
49

Rollo Tommasi,

30/01/2008 21:53:23
David - You've been covering these boards so well recently, I thought I'd be cramping your style if I joined in too!
50

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 22:00:58
#45 James (1)
I have always read and respected your comments, but I find your reference to "junkies" in respoding to mine a wee bit harsh.
51

is it me?,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 22:03:31
tut "responding"
52

David from New Mills,

U.K. 30/01/2008 22:11:41
49, Rollo Tommasi.
No sweat Rollo. There's always room on board for those who are happy to take on the puffers, wheezers and hacking coughers who espouse the F2C train of thought, or lack of it. And Petrol Man thinks I should curl up and go away quietly. Foolish him!
53

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 23:48:43
#31:

"These findings can still, to the embarrassment of the WHO, be viewed on the www."

Any chance of posting a link?

Anyway people. Even the most blinkered, anti-smoking wind up merchant posting here must surely agree with one fact. This brain-dead ban has set people against each other.

Yeah, sure enough, we could carry on slinging mud at each other and arguing till the cows come home but the fact remains that without this ban, we would not be doing so.

That's the thing about ALL bans and similar sweeping knee-jerk legislation, they serve no real purpose except to polarise society---those who agree with it and those who don't. Those who agree are generally unbeliveably smug and think they can get away with pouring any amount of vitriol on those who disagree with it. Those who disagree are likewise disposed to the others and the result is a load of nastiness.

If the principle of freedom of choice was to be brought back to society and the concept of tolerance wasto be promoted, then we may see an end to all this rubbish.

No doubt some of those in favour of this smoking ban will come back with some or other nasty, insulting comment or a smart-ar*e remark but if they do, they are just proving beyond doubt that they are incapable of rational thought.

This smoking ban exists only because of the pressure applied by anti-smoking extremist groups and the political climate that gave them a platform. The rest was just lies and spin.

There is no such thing as "passive smoking". This was an invention of anti-smoking groups and has been proven in many proper scientific studies not to be an issue either way. I have never heard so many lies in my life. They claimed that this smoking ban would save 3000 lives a year in Scotland... Well? It has been nearly 2 years now. Show me evidence that 6000 people have not died as a result of this ban. They can't? Oh what a surprise!
54

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 30/01/2008 23:55:34
#46:

"You do not need to believe in gravity but it exists!"

James,

You can prove not only that gravity exists but WHY it exists by way of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

You cannot prove that passive smoking exists. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that it is an isignificant factor if indeed it is a factor at all.
55

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 31/01/2008 00:01:30
MY.GARDEN.SHED.LOOKS.A.LOT.BETTER/.MOUNTGRINGE.DECOR
56

six up,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 01:45:45
All of you anti smokers drive cars don't you. Yes - every one of you i've no doubt. Therefore you contribute to the deaths of countless people as well - or didn't you know that? Of course you know that but does it stop you driving your petrol guzzling 4x4's? No!! Why not then? Because you have to drive? I dont think so! You don't care because you're all complete hypocrytes. Stuck up tw@ts the lot of you - I'm an ex smoker and the smokers have already been forced out of nearly every corner of society. All they ask is somewhere they can go to partake in their so called filthy habit without you lot bleating on about and even a shed, outside, away from you lot, where you dont need to be anyhwere near, is still not good enough. Why - because maybe, just maybe, a non smoker might have to empty the ashtrays from an open air shed that the wind is constantly blowing through.
You all contribute, in some way, to the ill health of another human being and do nothing to stop that, yet you feel no shame in chastising the smoker because YOU dont like it!
A long hard look at yourselves first. None of you are blameless for the deaths of others in some way or another are you?
57

Iain fae Elgin,

London 31/01/2008 07:26:27
Don't care whether it kills people or not.

When I'm eating food I don't like the smell.

Simple really.
58

Rollo Tommasi,

31/01/2008 07:56:23
Six up (56). A misguided rant, I'm afraid. Although you probably know none of the people on these boards, you still presume to know how we live our lives. You're certainly wrong about me, and I suspect others too.

If you actually bother to read the posts on this boards, you'll see that nobody is complaining about the shed referred to in the article. And certainly nobody is suggesting that smoking be banned. All some of us are saying is that, while people have the right to harm themselves by smoking, they don't have the right to harm others in public places through their smoking.

There's a world of difference between the possible risks to others from essential travel and the almost certain risks to others from passive smoking. Can we travel in a way which reduces possible risks to others? Yes - and I believe I do.
59

Rollo Tommasi,

31/01/2008 08:35:26
Fuel head (53). An aimless rant. You complain that people who support the new smoking laws "think they can get away with pouring any amount of vitriol on those who disagree". Yet it was YOU who started this board, complete with references to "Nazis" who don't use their brains. All because you thought some people were complaining about this shack, when in fact nobody has (although, as Euan as 33 says, locals may well have an issue about noise from the shack).

And I suggest you read the science before you repeat nonsense claims like "There is no such thing as "passive smoking". This was an invention of anti-smoking groups and has been proven in many proper scientific studies not to be an issue either way".

If you're actually interested, a 2005 NHS Scotland report ("Passive Smoking and Associated Causes
of Death in Adults in Scotland") estimated that 1,500-2,000 deaths in Scotland for never-smokers and ex-smokers might be attributable to passive smoking. The new laws do not end this risk totally. Many people will still be exposed to passive smoking elsewhere (e.g. in their home). And medics will tell you that health risks built up over years of exposure to smoke will not disappear completely overnight. Even so, it seems the new laws are having an immediate health benefit - there was a big drop in heart attack admissions to hospitals in Scotland last year.

And I have to ask you this. You obviously detest anything which the Nazis might have supported. Does this mean you also hate motorways and affordable cars?
60

Belinda-2,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 09:39:05
Rollo

If the laws don't eradicate the risk completely, why were we told that the smoking ban would save 1,000 lives a year which (David Hole aside) is the figure routinely given for passive smoking deaths each year? So how long do we have to wait for a drop in the annual mortality figure?

Since the release of official figures in October the much heralded drop in heart attacks turned out to be much smaller than 17 per cent. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm.
61

Duncan in Edinburgh,

31/01/2008 11:11:48
#60 Belinda honestly - your latest argument is "not as many lives were saved as was claimed therefore the smoking ban should be repealed"? I thought your line was that they were acceptable risks for the social intercourse that smoking in bars enabled, or somesuch claptrap. I'm beginning to suspect that you have no genuine argument at all.
62

David from New Mills,

U.K. 31/01/2008 11:20:10
#1, Petrol Man.
"Non-smokers are of course also welcome but whingers are not."
If p.h. takes a moment to reflect, he will notice that it is members of the pro-smoker lobby who are so prone to be guilty of whinging on these threads, in which case the shack/shed/barn/hut/outhouse in question might be somewhat sparsely occupied.
63

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 31/01/2008 11:39:57
#53, Petrol Head.
"Even the most blinkered, anti-smoking wind up merchant posting here must surely agree with one fact. This brain-dead ban has set people against each other.
Yeah, sure enough, we could carry on slinging mud at each other and arguing till the cows come home but the fact remains that without this ban, we would not be doing so."
Here's a suggestion for 'concerned p.h. of Scotland'. Let's all recognise and accept the fact that U.K. smoking legislation is a fact of life, and refrain from seizing any chance to divert the most innocuous news story into an incensed diatribe against the status quo, with frequent allusions to Nazis, and any other imagined hate figures.
Rather, let's be magnanimous in victory, and let the cows come home peacefully.
However, the first one to break the rules of this suggested new régime must expect to face just retribution.
How about it, Petrol Head and others?
64

AndrewS,

Edinburgh 31/01/2008 11:50:50
#21 Why did you not stay in Spain if you liked it so much?
something to do with too many foreigners and not enough wind and rain ? They got trams ?
65

Rollo Tommasi,

31/01/2008 21:44:31
Belinda (60): You say the claim is usually made that the smoking laws would save 1,000 lives a year in Scotland. I'd check your sources if I were you. The figures I see say that passive smoking causes the deaths of up to 1,000 never-smokers in Scotland each year, plus a similar number of ex-smokers. And the drop in heart attack admissions in 2006 was considerably larger than the average reduction in previous years.

I think Duncan @ 61 is right to say you're clutching at weak arithmetic arguments in some kind of desperate attempt to deny the probability that passive smoking lies behind the deaths of hundreds of people in Scotland each year. From recent postings you seem to think that a person's right to poison the air around their neighbours in public places should trump action to save lives unless we know precisely how many lives will be saved as a result. How can that be right?
66

Stef,

Bandera, Texas 15/02/2008 23:22:51
#7 Finbar Saunders
You really are a horrible, selfish little man with a complete disregard for the wishes and personal choices of other folk, both smokers and all tolerant people would regard you as just another mindless and pathetic bi-product of this mindless legislation. As for the smoke obsessed David from New Mills, he will now notice that I have relocated from Edinburgh and enjoying my beer and smoking a cigarette in my favourite music bar here in Texas. David's, views would be responded to with a shotgun and his butt kicked in this part of the world, these greatly sofisticated people have a very straightforward view about petty small minded characters like himself.Perhaps some of the free choice and reasonable concepts of these good Texas people might be considered by the equally small minded and oppressive Scottish Government who found themselves being elected following a Banana Republic election and on mandate of corruption, they have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the health of the Scottish people, it is so refreshing to be apart from these corrupt politicians who care nothing for those who elected them. I would further add to this that the quality and quantity of live-music in this town can beat all the live-music support given to the arts in Edinburgh and Scotland as a whole. As for the SNP junta, never have so few done so much to destroy the live music culture of the Scottish Nation, you should be bl***y ashamed of yourselves, for awarding yourselves salaries for all the damage you do to your people and the business's you are hell bent on destroying. Quite frankly the whole damn lot of you disgust me.
67

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville. 16/02/2008 12:03:28
#66,Cowboy stef.
Stef's locale and environment would appear to have made no improvement to his usual vitriolic contributions.
Unclear if wee stef's relocation is permanent, as he seems to be enjoying the company of his redneck "sofisticated people". Isn't that where Bush hails from? Oh,dear!
I'll leave contributors in Scotland to respond to his anti-SNP & Holyrood diatribe, and permit him to enjoy his charming "sofisticated" company.
68

James Donald,

Newbridge 20/02/2008 13:11:17
#66 Stef,Bandera, Texas - "Quite frankly the whole damn lot of you disgust me" - and equally frankly, I would ask who gives a stuff what you think.
Instead of posting all this guff, why not turn your hand to writing country and western songs where you can turn your tales of woe into entertainment for the goobers in your local music bar?
69

David from New Mills,

U.K. 20/02/2008 22:41:00
#68,James Donald,Newbridge.
Just to give wee stef a start, how about the following to the tune of "Home Cooking":-
Oh woe is me,
How slow is me,
Can't smoke no more,
Life's such a bore!
Home smoking, home smoking etc etc.
No doubt two gun Tex can embellish further to occupy his sterile mind?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.