|
By:
Advisors spice, i hope its not compulsory yet
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
We need 8sids opinion here.
|
|
By:
:)
|
|
By:
£40? White ace 60 pence a can. And that won't make you listen to gay music.
|
|
By:
no but it will make you p1ss yourself
|
|
By:
The smoking ban was enforced in pubs in Holland,cant think of one bar that as enforced it.
|
|
By:
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 :) |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
we cannot have supposed monetery considerations deciding a health issue
landlords are not qualified to decide |
|
By:
lmfao
I think you will find that there are monetary aspects that affect every health decision taken by governments |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
the gov will be allowing the smoking of shisha pipes in public cafe's shortly
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
They ignore it in so many european countries anyway
|
|
By:
It will be ignored again by the Dutch,they will go out of buisness if enforced by landlords.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
zilzal: try and re-read - and you will see a 'supposed' in there.
|
|
By:
Of course they do, otherwise the country would be skint in all and sundry got every drug they needed
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
zilzal: go and have a fag , theres a good chap
|
|
By:
Thinly veiled as
I know that was**and i havent a good answer ay lmfao |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
What about couples, where one smokes and the other doesn't?
|
|
By:
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.... |
|
By:
Wish the wife would smoke a little more ;)
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
as usual- i am right on track
|
|
By:
Not if the pubs are a mile apart you tw@t.
|
|
By:
lmfao gets another pasting
|
|
By:
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. |