Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
I don't. Never have. Tried it once and didn't like it. I do, however, believe in freedom of choice, a concept which seems alien to some people.
|
Thats a swipe if its aimed at me stuart, and the question was not aimed at you in the first place.
But seeing as you replied, lets see, freedom of choice?
Where is the freedom of choice for the children in the car?
Maybe they can walk that mile to school with all the risks associated with sex offenders etc?
Freedom of choice has to benefit all parties.
---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
I dont smoke but this is getting incredibly stupid.
1 - over legislation of what people do in their own space and time.
2 - the country getting extremely over protective of children. This country must be the most protective of children in the world.
Bear in mind smoking is already banned in taxis so this wouldnt be for that situation.
|
What people do in their own space and time?
Nobody should interfere?
I will remember that next time I crank the volume up on my rig.
I do not see anything wrong with protecting children from second hand smoke.
And lastly about taxi's, there lies the solution, put your kids in a taxi.
People shout about freedom of choice, but freedom of choice is not a one way street I am affraid.
---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogermevans
i couldnt go into most pubs before the ban with out being very ill maybe you just have blinkers on caused by your drug habit of choice
there were loads of us asking for smoke free areas but we were never realy catered for because most just set aside a room with no provision to stop the smoke from the rest of the pub getting in there
|
Very well said.
Whenever I came home on leave I would go back to base with all the side effects of second hand smoke, as both my folks smoked.
So in my opinion second hand smoke cannot be very good for your health can it?
---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
Well Roger i don't really know about pubs because i don't drink and very very rarely go in one. So i have my drug of choice and you have yours  . But lets be honest here if the demand for non smoking pubs was that high business would have come into and opened them making a lot of cash that didn't happen because...... |
You as good as said there was no demand for smoke free pubs.
A bit like an atheist saying there is no demand for religion?
---------- Post added at 10:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flange
The tax that smokers pay should be enough to cover any smoking related illness and some more.
|
I see, so never mind if you bury your kids the funeral will be paid for by the state so long as you pass the means test
---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezin
I think smoking in pubs came into this because it has been claimed that passive smoking causes cancer. I think it's reasonable to ask, if that is true, why we didn't see non-smoking bar staff (and spouses) affected by lung cancer. I don't think the two issues can be separated.
|
And as I posted a good time ago google " Roy castle " and you will find an example.
A guy who never smoked in his life worked in clubs died with lung cancer.
Yes one isolated death that was reported may be a drop in the ocean, if people prefer more proof unless there is a way of finding out the figures for respiratory deaths in people who have never smoked the debate will roll on.
I prefer to use my own judgement having seen my dad gasping for breath when he was struck down with emphysema, he smoked from the age of about 12, until about 12 months before he died but it was too late by then.