HOW CAN A GOVERNMENT BAN SMOKING IN PUBS

have you been drinking? which human right are you invoking?

Right to life
Freedom of expression and conscience
Right to free assembly
Right to personal privacy
No arbitrary searches or seizures
Right to respect for private and family life
Right to bodily integrity
Right to personal liberty
Freedom of association
Right to participate in government
Right to protection of the law
Right to property

1from the top and any 3 from the middle

Utter nonsense. Others should not be forced to breath in your smoke. If I stand in a pub drinking a pint do I pour 1/4 of it down the neck of the teetotal chap standing next to me? No.

This is one thing smokers fail to grasp. We dont want to share your habit.

Then let us go to pubs where smoking is allowed and we will let you go to pubs where it is not.

Problem?

Yes. Why should non-smoking staff breath in your smoke?

There are plenty happy to work in such a pub. The sort of people who have lost their jobs altogether because of the ban and the consequent closure of hundreds of pubs.

That isn't all down to the smoking ban. In fact the amount of smokers who no longer go to the pub have been replaced by non-smokers who wouldnt have gone before the ban was brought in.

Blame pub closures on the increasing prices of alcoho in pubsl, large chains such as Yates' taking over and the cheap drink available from supermarkets.

The smoking ban contributed, no question.

Well if it means saving peoples health then so be it.

Perhaps people can make choices like that for themselves.

Smoking is an uncontrollable addiction that kills. It should be eradicated.

In fifty years time people will look back on smoking as a naive foolish habit and wonder why anybody ever did it.

Thtas right, you have the God given right to tell me how I should behave. Thats where your argument has inevitably led you, and sums up the position.

Britain didn't used to be like this.

We've evolved. It's better to be told you can't smoke than be gripped by an addiction that is slowly killing you.

Its better to live in a tolerant society.

Thats the problem with smokers.They don't know how to behave. Selfish, and foul breathed, baztards!!

Society was tolerant when we didnt realise the damage smoking was causing. We've come a long way since then. Nothing good comes out of the habit. I can list you 20 negatives and zero positives.

It's not just Britain anyway. The whole of western society has woken up to this.

You can still smoke in bars and such in Europe, they are past masters at ignoring laws over there.

As it happens, I was smoking at a restaurant table over here on Saturday night and will be smoking in a pub tonight. Shan't say where, naturally.

Remember what it is you are being asked to tolerate. People smoking in pubs which are licensed to smoke, and people not smoking in non-smoking pubs where you would be very welcome, I am sure.

As it happens, I was smoking at a restaurant table over here on Saturday night and will be smoking in a pub tonight. Shan't say where, naturally.

Batman eat your heart out there is a new vigilante in town

They didn't ban it in the Bars in Parliament. It's still legal there.

They did actually, but it wasn't covered by the Act, because the Houses of Parliament is sovereign and not covered by domestic law. My understanding is , the authorities who run the house banned it seperately from Parliament.

SIGN THE PETITION




http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/revokesmokingban/

signed

healingmylegalhealingmyheart 09 Nov 04:08


have you been drinking? which human right are you invoking?

Right to life
Freedom of expression and conscience
Right to free assembly
Right to personal privacy
No arbitrary searches or seizures
Right to respect for private and family life
Right to bodily integrity
Right to personal liberty
Freedom of association
Right to participate in government
Right to protection of the law
Right to property


Not everything has to be black and white, have you no sense of humour. GEEK!!!

I'm fond of the right to breathe fresh unadulterated air in the the surroudings i care to inhabit.

birchola - Utter nonsense. Others should not be forced to breath in your smoke. If I stand in a pub drinking a pint do I pour 1/4 of it down the neck of the teetotal chap standing next to me? No.

-----------------

does this mean that non car drivers should be forced to breathe in exhaust fumes?

how long till they ban cars....

Would people who liked Classical music and RAP go to the same place??, well then if people disagree then a choice should be available.

Are you saying non smokers shouldnt go to pubs Zil?

It is also shows favouritism towards a particular group (non-smokers) which bottomline is a type of racism.


................................,-~*`¯££££`*~,............................................. .....
...........................,-~*`££££££££££¯`*-,..........................................
......................,-~*££££££££££££££££*-,......................................
..................,-*££££££££££££££££££.\... ..................................
................;*`£££££££££,-~*~-,£££££££\....................................
................\£££££££££/...........\;;;;££££,-`~-,................................
.................££££££££,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,...............................
...................\£££££,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)..............................
.....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../...............................
.....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\..............................
.................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\.......................... ...
...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,........... .........
...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,..............
.................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
.................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\..........
..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\.........
......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........
........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......

That isn't a human right. I don't drive anymore but you don't those like me campeigning for the right not to breathe in dirty car fumes, which can't be good for anyone's health.

I don't see how the government has the right to enforce healthier lifestyles on us, or how it has the right to tell us what to do on private property.

this policy is indicative of the changing poliitical attitudes in this country. Freedom is loosing its appeal.

"the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"- thomas jefferson

Birchola 09 Nov 07:54


Utter nonsense. Others should not be forced to breath in your smoke. If I stand in a pub drinking a pint do I pour 1/4 of it down the neck of the teetotal chap standing next to me? No.

This is one thing smokers fail to grasp. We dont want to share your habit.


Why would we want to share our valuable smoke with you. Smokers do grasp the fact that smokey atmospheres are harmful to non-smokers, however there is still a compromise. Why should non-smokers have every pub, thats just selfish.
I started smoking when in the army due to peer pressure, ok yes i was weak to give in, however if at the time (23 years ago) i was told that in the future i would be treated as a second class citizen i may have thought twice, but in those days everywhere you looked smoking was promoted as acceptable. TV, films, adverts billboards etc.
So have some sympathy towards people who are grasped by an addiction that is hard to beat and accept that as human beings with an illness all we want is an internal heated area segregated in pub to socialise with people with the same problem.

Tevez is God 09 Nov 14:04

Another forumite with no sense of humour.

can you please explain what the joke was then? chhers :)

cheers, even ;)

Don't read all my posts as 100% sensible, lol.

its the thin end of the wedge - thank god


roll on a full ban

Don't read all my posts as 100% sensible, lol

no, really?

Dont be surprised if Alcohol is viewed in the same light in a few years time.

Government advisers say we should all take ecstasy as its safer than alcohol anyway.

Advisors spice, i hope its not compulsory yet

trust splicer to get it wrong. The prof quite rightly said that the risks from booze are greater. there is no message there about what drugs to take, all he is doing is making risk comparisons.

extacy is a lot less damaging to society as you want to hug, not punch, people. Also an e'd up person provides entertainment to the sober by dancing like a chicken with a plug up its arse.

well i have avoided drugs pretty much in favour of getting drunk, but it makes you think dont it, alcohol more damaging costs about £40 to get steaming, ecstasy better for you cost about £3, you do the math.

We need 8sids opinion here.

:)

£40? White ace 60 pence a can. And that won't make you listen to gay music.

no but it will make you p1ss yourself

The smoking ban was enforced in pubs in Holland,cant think of one bar that as enforced it.

I have a solution to this problem :


A COMPROMISE:

establish smoking pubs in asbestos condemned buildings

all non-smokers will avoid such places because they have even a moderate degree of common sense.

smokers can frequent them because it will matter not one jot to them either way

problem solved :)

I'm not bothered either way but there should be a choice.

Many pubs HAVE gone out of business through the smoking ban.

Let landlords decide if they want thier premises to be smoking or non smoking.

Market forces will decide who has made the better decision.

we cannot have supposed monetery considerations deciding a health issue

landlords are not qualified to decide

lmfao

I think you will find that there are monetary aspects that affect every health decision taken by governments

Right to life- in a smoke free environment
Freedom of expression and conscience in a smoke free environment
Right to free assembly in a smoke free environment
Right to personal privacy in a smoke free environment
No arbitrary searches or seizures in a smoke free environment
Right to respect for private and family life in a smoke free environment
Right to bodily integrity in a smoke free environment
Right to personal liberty in a smoke free environment
Freedom of association in a smoke free environment
Right to participate in government in a smoke free environment
Right to protection of the law in a smoke free environment
Right to property in a smoke free environment

the gov will be allowing the smoking of shisha pipes in public cafe's shortly

lmfao 09 Nov 17:38


we cannot have supposed monetery considerations deciding a health issue

landlords are not qualified to decide


Rubbish

If landlord A decides to make his pub a smoking pub and landlord B decides his is a non smoking pub both parties have a option where they would like to drink/eat.

If everyone, as is touted, wants a smoke free enviroment then everyone would drink in pub B. Landlord A then would either have to turn his pub into a smoke free pub or it goes bust.

Dutch govt to change smoking law
September 14, 2009
THE HAGUE The Dutch government vowed Friday to change the law to keep bars smoke free after it suffered two successive defeats in court against bar owners challenging a smoking ban.

A cabinet statement said the government would introduce changes to legislation in order to make sure that

exactly Blue and white- to allow this would be unfair

thus: we cannot have landlords deciding a health issue- read it again m8.

Landlords quite rightly have no say re this - they must just comply - for the greater good.

They ignore it in so many european countries anyway

It will be ignored again by the Dutch,they will go out of buisness if enforced by landlords.

lmfao

You were on about health and monetary policy a few mins ago and how cost doesnt come into it

would you like to back this up please

All you smokies are just getting worried coz the nights are fair drawing in and theres a bit of a nip in the air.

i love it when its belting outside and the smokers who used to say 'i can quit any time i like' bow their heads and sneak out for 5 minutes

aas for the smokers who always admitted that it is a pathetic and stupid addiction which they are unable to stop no matter how hard they have tried - yup- i feel genuinely sorry for them.


i cant imagine how bad it must feel to need a ciggie every few minutes from dawn til dusk

how awful

zilzal: try and re-read - and you will see a 'supposed' in there.

Of course they do, otherwise the country would be skint in all and sundry got every drug they needed

lmfao 09 Nov 17:38
we cannot have supposed monetery considerations deciding a health issue


How about you post this to the chancellor and the Health Secretary just to give them a good laugh

zilzal: go and have a fag , theres a good chap

Thinly veiled as

I know that was**and i havent a good answer ay lmfao

ok
here it is:
landlords are not the right people to decide a health issue based on 'supposed' monetery policy


and there's more:

unless a landlord is an expert on health and smoking - he/she does not have the capacity to contract in law on the subject.
now- that may sound obtuse- but it is true.

sibaroni 09 Nov 07:56
Then let us go to pubs where smoking is allowed and we will let you go to pubs where it is not.

Problem?


thats wot it should have been

Birchola 09 Nov 08:09
That isn't all down to the smoking ban. In fact the amount of smokers who no longer go to the pub have been replaced by non-smokers who wouldnt have gone before the ban was brought in.

WOT A LOAD OF RUBBISH, i know for a fact from my own local that the smoking ban has made it hard for it to survive due to the ban. my local will close within the next few months because custom is not picking up due to the ban. more and more smokers are leaving and not being replaced by the so called non -smokers

What about couples, where one smokes and the other doesn't?

lmfao 09 Nov 17:50


exactly Blue and white- to allow this would be unfair

thus: we cannot have landlords deciding a health issue- read it again m8.

Landlords quite rightly have no say re this - they must just comply - for the greater good.

Landlords would not have the say....the public would have the say when they choose which establishment they decided to frequent.

This is not a difficult concept to understand....

Wish the wife would smoke a little more ;)

lmfao 09 Nov 17:20


I have a solution to this problem :


A COMPROMISE:

establish smoking pubs in asbestos condemned buildings

all non-smokers will avoid such places because they have even a moderate degree of common sense.

smokers can frequent them because it will matter not one jot to them either way

problem solved

You really are a d1ck head arn't you. Smokers have as much common sense as anyone else.
Remember most of the greatest British people through history are shown smoking.

lmfao 09 Nov 18:51


Surgeon General: No Safe Level for Secondhand Smoke
Report Bolsters Clean Indoor Air Efforts



Secondhand smoke is dangerous in any amount, and the only way to protect people from that danger is to eliminate indoor smoking. SOURCE: US Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.

"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," said Carmona, vice admiral of the US Public Health Service. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

Cancer experts praised Carmona's report, which adds weight to efforts to get clean indoor air laws passed throughout the country.

"Today's report should end any lingering debate over the importance of enacting comprehensive smoke-free laws," said John Seffrin PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society. "The report confirms that the only way to protect people from secondhand smoke is to eliminate their exposure."

Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer, Other Diseases
Medical experts and public health officials have long known that secondhand smoke poses a danger to non-smokers. A Surgeon General's report in 1986 found that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, and also concluded that merely separating smokers from nonsmokers doesn't eliminate the threat from secondhand smoke.

The new report pulls together evidence from the numerous studies that have been done on secondhand smoke since that time. It includes in-depth analyses of the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, including how it causes cancer, damages the respiratory tract, and harms the circulatory system. The report also examines the impact of secondhand smoke on children, and looks at exposure levels in the United States.

In terms of cancer, the report confirms that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer and that nonsmokers who live with a smoker have a 20%-30% higher risk of lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke.

The report says there isn't enough evidence to say for sure that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, but existing evidence is "suggestive."

Other major conclusions:


Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in adults and children who do not smoke.
Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate negative effects on the heart, and causes heart disease and lung cancer.
Secondhand smoke can worsen asthma in children, and puts them at risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, and ear problems.
Scientific evidence shows that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Millions of American adults and children are still exposed to secondhand smoke at home and in the workplace.
Having separate smoking and nonsmoking areas, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. Prohibiting smoking in indoor spaces does.

tHIS IS WHY THE SMOKING BAN IN PUBS MUST REMAIN IN FORCE

The science and dangers of smoking are not in dispute on this thread just the fact that regardless of how harmful smoking is smokers and non-smokers could have reached a compromise with reference to pubs.

Imfao you are right off track, as usual.

read it again- slowly:

secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer, and also concluded that merely separating smokers from nonsmokers doesn't eliminate the threat from secondhand smoke.

therefore no segregation of smoking areas is safe
the only safe solution is a total ban

get it

A TOTAL BAN

which is what we've got.

as usual- i am right on track

Not if the pubs are a mile apart you tw@t.

lmfao gets another pasting

prior to the ban, I used to like a pint and a smoke in the pub, and then it was all spoiled by diners.

I would not tolerate folk entering my kitchen smoking and yet I'm supposed to accept cheapskates taking over my pub to eat. This is where it went wrong imo.

a mile is way too close to a smoker- remember:
there is no safe level of secondhand smoke

So if they are standing 5 yards outside its safer than a mile down the road.

Christ, we're all DOOMED

lmfao 09 Nov 19:22


a mile is way too close to a smoker- remember:
there is no safe level of secondhand smoke


Well stick a bag over your head and do us all a favour.

Preferably a plastic one.