smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by orangebird

What about discriminating against smokers??????
They can still smoke, but it will be in a separate area.

You reckon that would be likely?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3986973.stm
If he wanted to work in the casino, he had no choice.


Apart from pubs, I can't think of any businesses where people might live on their premises.
mmmm- landlords can still smoke in their private living areas (which are usually above/separate to the customer areas)


Of course it's about want!!!!!! How many people have posted in this thread about looking forward to it because it may reduce SID??? No-one. It's mainly 'I don't want to smell of smoke' yadda yadda yadda.
The government (not the voters) have brought this in for health reasons, and (imho) one of the benefits of that will be lack of tobacco smell on clothes after visiting the local hostelry

Thought this would have been a good enough reason, myself......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4309613.stm
"Passive smoking kills more than 11,000 a year in the UK - much higher than previously thought, a study shows.
The British Medical Journal study also gives a figure for people dying from second-hand smoke in the workplace - 600 a year - for the first time"

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I expect an awful lot more from you.

dont know why. i'm an idiot.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I don't believe it is about "wanting" non-smoking pubs - it is about reducing health risks, especially to passive smokers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6196910.stm

"Ms Hewitt said the ban would protect everyone from second-hand smoke, while making it easier for smokers to quit.
"The scientific and medical evidence is clear - second-hand smoke kills, causing a range of serious medical conditions including lung cancer, heart disease, and sudden infant death syndrome," she said. "This legislation will help to prevent the unnecessary deaths caused every year from second-hand smoke, and recognises that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure." "

Which is why I made the point about having adequate smoking rooms*. Smokers *know* what the risks are. If they still wish to smoke, let them. Adequate smoking rooms should prevent non-smokers from passive smoking, and, lets face it, the smokers aren't worried about Active smoking, they aren't going to worry about passive smoking.

Edit:* By "Adequate Smoking rooms", I actually mean adequately ventillated smoking rooms. In the local pubs around me , where they did have smoking rooms, they also had extractor fans that were so strong that there was no chance of the smoke escaping into the non-smoking parts of the pub.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I feel quite sorry for smokers, it would serve us right if they all decided to give up at once! I wonder how the government would make up the revenue shortfall?

Speed cameras, operated by muslims.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Speed cameras, operated by muslims.

Nah too simple. Charging motorists to drive by the mile is more likely

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Speed cameras, operated by muslims.

pmsl

I still think that there should be a choice.A way to accomodate everyone's wishes.Or a damn sight more help with giving up smoking from all the revenue that the government earns from the taxes.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I still think that there should be a choice.A way to accomodate everyone's wishes.Or a damn sight more help with giving up smoking from all the revenue that the government earns from the taxes.

I suspect the thing is that the Government wants to appear to be doing something, but without actually doing anything that substantially reduces the number of smokers. After all, if they get £10 billion a year in tax, they don't want to lose that.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Speed cameras, operated by muslims.

Immigrant muslims, who also happen to be Gypsies..

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Immigrant muslims, who also happen to be Gypsies..

Tax-dodging, burqa-wearing, stone-age illegal immigrant Muslim gypsies

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Immigrant muslims, who also happen to be Gypsies..

Folks,I think it's important that we take an even handed approach on this matter.

Therefore we also need to consider the gay tax-dodging, burqa-wearing, stone-age illegal immigrant disabled gypsy muslim speed camera operators. If anyone has any anecdotal experience of dealing with such minorities I'd be only too glad to hear same.

Meanwhile I'm off for a fag (in the carcinogenic sense, mind you).

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Folks,I think it's important that we take an even handed approach on this matter.

Therefore we also need to consider the gay tax-dodging, burqa-wearing, stone-age illegal immigrant disabled gypsy muslim speed camera operators. If anyone has any anecdotal experience of dealing with such minorities I'd be only too glad to hear same.

Meanwhile I'm off for a fag (in the carcinogenic sense, mind you).

I'd heard you were a twenty a day man - now it all makes sense!

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

If anyone has any anecdotal experience of dealing with such minorities I'd be only too glad to hear same.

Aren't they exempt from paying the television licence fee, for fear of upsetting them?

Originally Posted by danielf

Aren't they exempt from paying the television licence fee, for fear of upsetting them?

Only on widescreen TVs.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I'd heard you were a twenty a day man - now it all makes sense!

Twenty a day - Shirley she must have some across one wearing a burqa by now!

[hatedbythemail]

you know what, i haven't laffed so much in ages. good work all