Reply to: cigarette ban for anyone born after 2000

[BrilloPad]

Bit crap if you live in a village with one pub.

Most pubs seem to rely on food these days. Only good reason to buy an urban pub these days is to convert it to flats.

[d000hg]

Bit crap if you live in a village with one pub.

[Robinho]

So you think the smoking ban in pubs was a good thing, or liberal kill-joys messing with our rights?

It should really be down to the individual pub whether you can smoke in it or not. People who didn't like smoke could then choose to go to an establishment where you can't smoke inside.

[d000hg]

Giving a 18yo dullard a choice between a job or being too 'pretty' to 'get a bit smoky' is not about choice, it's about exploitation of people who don't know what they're signing up for.

[hyperD]

It is about employee protection. Employees should not have to work with harmful substances if this can be easily avoided. I don't care about customers. They can come or go as they please.

You are probably right SB, although the question does arise as to whether the employee would have a choice to work in a smoke-filled pub or one that does not, which would, I hope, be made clear in the interview. A case of choice, which through the recent authoritarian legislation, has been forcibly sidelined.

>> I don't care about customers

Unfortunately, the pub landlord doesn't have the fiscal luxury to sit behind that principal.

The irony of all this, as is the raison d'être of the birth of the pubs and the inevitable causations of bansturbation, is that many people have been effectively evicted from the pub causing the decline and livelihood of said business, and so they have decided to gather in like-minded fellow's houses to share a drink and a smoke as before the ban, and thus avoiding the legislation.

They call them "Smokey-Drinkies".

In days gone past, these were called public houses.

Which eventually morphed into what we now call, er, Pubs.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Scoobos]

No. Ideally we'd have a system where smokers don't pay for the healthcare of non-smokers (which is what happens now).

+1.

In other news, have you started again mate?

[Scoobos]

Again what happened to freedom of choice?

There is no choice with addiction.

I am an ex smoker, and it took 5 years and nearly gave me a nervous breakdown to quit. It was (for me) the biggest achievement of my life.

It hasn't made me a "holier than thou" quitter though, but it has opened my eyes to just how much death, injury and disability is happening in order to feed taxes and the tobacco companies.

I reckon, if you smoke you should get a card to say so and be able to buy cigs until your death - but if we are saying we need to ban it in all public places, then why not just ban anyone new from taking it up?


utopian I know, we'll just have smuggling of it perhaps.

It just grinds my gears to see smokers who have no idea of what its like to be a non smoker , complain that their rights are being infringed by others protecting theirs; whilst the non smokers try and dictate what a smoker can do in his own property , car or even shared space...

Pubs are ruined post smoking ban IMO.

[speling bee]

I would have preferred if it was optional for the landlord who knew his clientèle, which I believe was the original intent of the legislation, so that smokers and non-smokers could go to their preferred pubs or pubs that served food.

But no, the Bansturbators forced it on every pub, leaving us with the present situation.

Still, doesn't bother me, I don't smoke but I do like waving and puffing on my e-cig in restaurants and pubs, getting right up the nose of the Righteous.

It is about employee protection. Employees should not have to work with harmful substances if this can be easily avoided. I don't care about customers. They can come or go as they please.

[d000hg]

But no, the Bansturbators forced it on every pub, leaving us with the present situation.

I'm exceeding glad; it's one of the best changes in pubs/restaurants I can remember... but purely due to the smell, not the health implications!

Personally a smoking room seems fine to me rather than making them go and loiter outside the door so you have to run a gauntlet of builders and chavs to get in

I still remember being forced to travel in the smoking carriage on trains as a kid, maybe that just scarred be a bit.

[hyperD]

So you think the smoking ban in pubs was a good thing, or liberal kill-joys messing with our rights?

I would have preferred if it was optional for the landlord who knew his clientèle, which I believe was the original intent of the legislation, so that smokers and non-smokers could go to their preferred pubs or pubs that served food.

But no, the Bansturbators forced it on every pub, leaving us with the present situation.

Still, doesn't bother me, I don't smoke but I do like waving and puffing on my e-cig in restaurants and pubs, getting right up the nose of the Righteous.

[d000hg]

Liberals banning stuff? I is confoozd now.

Probably commies too.

[Mich the Tester]

So you think the smoking ban in pubs was a good thing, or liberal kill-joys messing with our rights?

Liberals banning stuff? I is confoozd now.

[The Spartan]

About 3 years ago a taxi driver took me from home to JP Morgan(early shift on bank holiday pre cycling days). He was quite elderly. He reckoned that there was far less violence around these days - due to kids using drugs instead of alcohol.

Interesting viewpoint - and if correct might be an argument for legalising some drugs(and taxing them too of course).

I have often thought about whether it would be a good thing to legalise certain drugs and sell them at say a pharmacy etc like you say the tax attached to them would raise more money and it minimises the black market for it of course it won't eradicate it but the war on drugs doesn't seem to be going very well so why not take a different approach

[d000hg]

Alcohol causes liver disease and leads to violence on a Saturday night, too much fast food causes obesity, type two diabetes and other problems should we ban those too?

Stopping people drinking to excess would be fine. That certainly impacts my life more than smoking does.

No. But you can be guaranteed that a bunch of bansturbators whose very livelihoods depend on tax payer's funding, will.

So you think the smoking ban in pubs was a good thing, or liberal kill-joys messing with our rights?

[BrilloPad]

Alcohol causes liver disease and leads to violence on a Saturday night, too much fast food causes obesity, type two diabetes and other problems should we ban those too?

About 3 years ago a taxi driver took me from home to JP Morgan(early shift on bank holiday pre cycling days). He was quite elderly. He reckoned that there was far less violence around these days - due to kids using drugs instead of alcohol.

Interesting viewpoint - and if correct might be an argument for legalising some drugs(and taxing them too of course).