Smoking Bans

Are you in favour of banning smoking in public places

  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
No objections here. Piss artists have their rights too. Mind you there are walls in the toilets that are better prepared for that kind of activity.
 
Will,

what you and others that support total bans cannot grasp is my right to meet with other smokers in a pub that is just for smokers. That doesn't force anyone -including staff- to enter and be polluted or corrupted. If you don'twant to go in don't. If you want to go in a non smoking bar,- go in one. Its pretty simple.

On the basis that the majority don't want to go into a smoking pub therefore ban all smoking pubs then why not ban churches and mosques as well. The majority want nothing to do with them and many would argue that the messages they put out corrupt decent otherwise sensible people and cause problems for the rest of society,even to the point of of encouraging people to blow others up and shoot them. Let's ban all religions we don't like. Hey!Great! It is fun being Fascist!. Bring back hanging for murder, the majority support it, stops them murderers killing again and affecting society in an unsociable way.Yeah! Right On!

Whoa!Hang on, aren't we meant to be a tolerant and "civilised" society,live and let live and all that. Civilised doesn't only mean the people who are totally in agreement with the thoughts of the majority!
 
I think smoking should be banned from every public building in the land.
If there's one thing that winds me up it's having to breath in smoke that some selfish bar steward is blowing all over the place.
If people want to smoke they should do it in their own houses or in the open air.
It is a filthy disgusting habit that doesn't just affect the smoker, it affects everyone in the same room.
What if I had a habit that involved throwing buckets of water around in every room I went in? does that mean I have the right to throw a bucket of water over every ferker who walks in to the room?
As for smokers rights, well in my opinion they don't have the right to force their habit on everyone around them. If it didn't affect other people it would be different, but it does.
If people want to smoke why don't they build a bleeding great bonfire in their back garden and stand over that inhaling all the crap it gives off?
It's got to be cheaper than paying for cigarettes.


For me a total ban can't happen quickly enough
 
In this heat honey one cannot march to work for fear of appearing at the office in an undignified, sweaty state ill-fitting for ladies! ;) :D
 
After the smoking ban . . . it's back to the pub as sales jump
(Irish Independent)



OFF-LICENCE sales are falling and Irish drinkers are returning to the pub, new figures from the Central Statistics Office released yesterday show.

Sales of beer, wine, spirits and food in pubs rose by 1.1pc in July 2005 compared with the previous month, showing an annual increase of 5.8pc.

At the same time, off-licence sales fell by 5pc between June and July, showing a slight annual decrease of 0.1pc.

The Retail Sales Index published yesterday shows the increase, or decrease, in the volume and value of sales of a number of items including food, alcohol, clothing, hardware, books, newspapers, and other staples.

The index shows that the value of sales in pubs is at its highest level since January 2003, one year before the smoking ban came in, with an increase in the volume of sales of 7.4pc since the beginning of the year.

Although pub sales have fallen during the same period, inflation and price increases had led to the value of sales increasing. A CSO spokesperson said that pub sales had been falling before the smoking ban was introduced but were now recovering.

The Vintners' Federation of Ireland and the Licensed Vintners' Association, which represent Irish publicans, were not available to comment.
 
Just been watching Gerard Depardieu on the Jonathan Ross show and he lit up just like Peter Cook used to on chat shows. When he`d finished he just stubbed it out on the plush red carpet.
Legend.
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Aug 17 2005, 11:57 AM
Especially as the dangers of passive smoking is media contrived bullshit.


Really? The fact that what is published in the media comes from tghe work of respected scientists and people who have spent many years of their life qualifying in medicine seems to have escaped your attention.

What was extensively covered in the media was the publication of a study claiming that secondhand smoke might not be as harmful as previously believed.

Coverage of the story appeared in all the major newspapers, with reports ranging from lengthy analysis, to short and brief mentions.

Among the many headlines were, "Claim that passive smoking does no harm ignites tobacco row", "Passive smoking may not damage your health after all, says research", "Passive smoking isn't such a peril, say researchers" and "Fury at 'smoke screen'".

This study appeared in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and was based on research by James Enstrom, from the University of California, and Geoffrey Kabat, from the State University of New York. They analysed data from the American Cancer Society's (ACS) Cancer Prevention Study, which was started in 1959 and ended in 1998. In total 118,094 Californian adults had been studied, and Enstrom and Kabat focused on the 35,561 nonsmokers who were married to partners who smoked.

The researchers chose this subgroup of nonsmokers because they reasoned that being married to smokers meant that this group was exposed to secondhand smoke. According to their analysis of this group, passive smoking (by inhaling a spouse's cigarette smoke) wasn't significantly associated with an increased risk of death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. From this finding, the study's authors, suggest that passive smoking cannot cause the 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease that it is currently believed to cause. Instead, they argue that it might cause a much smaller effect. However, they couldn't rule out the possibility of a 20 per cent increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

But the American Cancer Society (ACS) - the organisation whose data was used - has strongly criticised the study.

Not least because Enstrom and Kabat's research was funded by the tobacco industry and supported by the now defunct Centre for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) - a group funded and founded by cigarette companies.

I haven't voted in the poll but just thought that a little factual information wouldn't do any harm.
 
Passive smoking kills - period. When my grandmother developed heart problems 15 years after my heavy smoking grandfather died they asked how many she smoked and for how long had she smoked - she had never smoked in her life . They lived and worked together however and they said she had the blood and arteries of a long term moderate smoker . She died from those heart problems and he died so young from lung cancer and emphysema i never met him .

You are pissing in the wind Euronymous with all respect .
 
Well said, i pay tax so i`ll smoke where i want. It`s a freedom issue and as for passive smoking and all these dicks who moan about you endangering there health......if you drive your a hypocrite, the toxins emmited from cars/trucks etc are more halmful.
 
Tired after a hard day at the office? Just sit back, relax and treat yourself

camel_toffee.jpg



Go on, have a fag. It`s not as if anyone gets out alive is it?
 
I smoked for 7 years until I returned from France. Then, in my final year at University, the choice was between food and nicotine. It was an easy choice. I haven't smoked since and don't miss it for a second. Maybe you should give up.
 
Smokers are selfish people, especially smokers who don't consider those around them who don't want all that crap in their lungs.

They all regret it in the end.
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Sep 17 2005, 07:40 PM
Well said, i pay tax so i`ll smoke where i want. It`s a freedom issue and as for passive smoking and all these dicks who moan about you endangering there health......if you drive your a hypocrite, the toxins emmited from cars/trucks etc are more halmful.
I'm sorry Euronymous but that argument doesn't wash in the slightest. How many times have you seen someone backing a car into a small room so that the exhaust fills the place with fumes?? You're clutching at straws & you know it. Cigarette fumes kill; they are deadly whether directly or passively inhaled & that is a scientific fact. Nevermind that they also make people stink; it is a disgusting, pikey offensive odour.
 
This thread confirms my suspiscions that many non smokers (of which I have always been one) are far, far more selfish than many hardened smokers. My partner smokes and she is the most considerate person imaginable in relation to her habit. She does not smoke in the sitting room or bedrooms (no comments please) and gets up from the dining table when we are out eating. Her clothes smell a darn sight more pleasant than mine do (although that could be a different issue) and I do not detect any evidence of nicotine anywhere on her body at any time(no, we don't sleep in separate beds).
Compare that to the last two contributions on here from non-smokers.
 
Back
Top