Smoking in public to be banned!
Posted by: Top Cat on 10 November 2004
...in Scotland, at least...
About high time too.
Discuss, 33mks.
About high time too.
Discuss, 33mks.
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
So the most vehement anti 'smoking ban' people here are non-smokers?
It is a question of freedom
As I have repeatedly pointed out, I accept that in a free society I cannot force others to modify their behaviour just because I don`t approve of it.
I find it objectionable when others wish to impose their own model of ideality on others.
This is tyranny
laurie S
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
No man is an island. So instead of laws governing acceptible behaviour, which you call tyranny, what would you suggest? Remember that many people might not be quite as tolerant as you nor as accomodating.
Absolutely correct, Tom
As I also stated, in a free society, we must compromise our individual freedoms.
Its all about balance. A line has to be drawn. I would suggest that the line be drawn where actual harm , rather than mere disaproval, can be demonstrated
I disapprove of people making gluttons of themselves and getting fat. I don`t like looking at fat people. Should I be allowed to introduce laws that force fat people to slim simply because I don`t like looking at them?
(I hypothesise)
There has to be a test. A measaurable degree of "harm" must be demonstrated
What I am objecting to is that a large number of people want to stop others from smoking simply because they disapprove of it. I suggest that in many cases, the justification for thisis simply just that.
A similar position was reached with homosexuality. Many wanted it "banned"simply because they thought it wrong. I see the arguments as the virtually same
Laurie S
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by sideshowbob
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Remember that many people might not be quite as tolerant as you nor as accomodating.
So it seems.
The last time I did a straw poll, being intolerant and unaccomodating were generally thought to be unpleasant character traits rather than worthy of being enshrined in law.
-- Ian
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by matthewr
You can argue the restriction of personal freedom angle both ways -- just about, the impinge my right not to experience a negative should I choose to undertake a voluntary activity is a little stained, imho -- and in such cases I think it's reasonable to stick with the status quo unless someone can come up with a good reason for change. "Beucase I don't like it" is not grounds for change in my view.
Health risks are a good reason but are problematic in terms of the level of actual risk and becuase most of the health benefit (looking at the First Minister's statement) comes from smokers being encouraged by a ban to give up not by people being saved from passive smoking. And becuase once one starts looking at health issues, the obvious thing quickly becomes to ban smoking althogether.
So if you want to ban it, rather than taking steps to encourage more non-smoking pubs, then make your case for it. Preferably with numbers.
Matthew
Health risks are a good reason but are problematic in terms of the level of actual risk and becuase most of the health benefit (looking at the First Minister's statement) comes from smokers being encouraged by a ban to give up not by people being saved from passive smoking. And becuase once one starts looking at health issues, the obvious thing quickly becomes to ban smoking althogether.
So if you want to ban it, rather than taking steps to encourage more non-smoking pubs, then make your case for it. Preferably with numbers.
Matthew
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by sideshowbob
It's known as "rhetoric" Tom, I didn't think anyone would seriously read my comment as a suggestion that I'd really done a straw poll. And there's no implication in my comments that I dislike people who support a ban, although I don't celebrate intolerance in either myself or anybody else, friend or otherwise.
On your other post, about compromise. I don't think any smoker objects to a restaurant or bar deciding to implement a totally smoke-free policy if that's their own decision. That's an entirely reasonable compromise, and has worked without any problems, as has already been said, on aircraft, in cinemas and theatres, etc etc. The blanket state imposition of a ban on an otherwise perfectly legal activity, OTOH, is not a compromise. My local pub has posters up all over the place objecting to any legal restraint on their right to decide in this matter, the landlord's view is that if his customers want him to make the place non-smoking then he'd be happy to do so (and if he did, I for one would still be a regular), but he's not happy to have that decision taken out of his own hands. It's his business after all.
Edit: I agree with Matthew's last post. If an argument is to be made about smoking, it ought to be about whether the entire activity should be banned, and, ISTM, the strongest part of that argument is the effects of smoking on smokers, and the concomitant impact on public health spending, rather than the contentious and unproven extent of the effects of passive smoking on non-smokers. But that's an argument governments are unwilling to pursue, for the very obvious reasons that they benefit enormously from the tax income on tobacco. If you want to debate principle, that's the debate to have.
-- Ian
On your other post, about compromise. I don't think any smoker objects to a restaurant or bar deciding to implement a totally smoke-free policy if that's their own decision. That's an entirely reasonable compromise, and has worked without any problems, as has already been said, on aircraft, in cinemas and theatres, etc etc. The blanket state imposition of a ban on an otherwise perfectly legal activity, OTOH, is not a compromise. My local pub has posters up all over the place objecting to any legal restraint on their right to decide in this matter, the landlord's view is that if his customers want him to make the place non-smoking then he'd be happy to do so (and if he did, I for one would still be a regular), but he's not happy to have that decision taken out of his own hands. It's his business after all.
Edit: I agree with Matthew's last post. If an argument is to be made about smoking, it ought to be about whether the entire activity should be banned, and, ISTM, the strongest part of that argument is the effects of smoking on smokers, and the concomitant impact on public health spending, rather than the contentious and unproven extent of the effects of passive smoking on non-smokers. But that's an argument governments are unwilling to pursue, for the very obvious reasons that they benefit enormously from the tax income on tobacco. If you want to debate principle, that's the debate to have.
-- Ian
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
The other way of looking at it is that the actions that are being curbed are in fact actions that curb other peoples freedoms, e.g. the freedom to go out without being forced to smell of smoke, the freedom to sit in a room without having to breathe someone else's smoke, the freedom to eat a meal in a restraunt with out having the taste masked by someones elses cigarette, etc. As you say it is a matter of compromise, in this case the smokers are being told compromise.
But Tom we also run up against the hypocrisy issue . As a driver of a motor vehicle, isn`t your demand, that smokers not pollutethe air you have to breathe, rather a case of you having double standards?
laurie S
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
DLF said "All I want is the freedom to not smoke. Too much to ask?"
You are perfectly entitled not to smoke. What you want is the right to oblige owners of private businesses to ban smoking in case you want to go there.
If someone smokes in my company then by definition I am forced to smoke. Passive smoking and all that.
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:quote:
The other way of looking at it is that the actions that are being curbed are in fact actions that curb other peoples freedoms, e.g. the freedom to go out without being forced to smell of smoke, the freedom to sit in a room without having to breathe someone else's smoke, the freedom to eat a meal in a restraunt with out having the taste masked by someones elses cigarette, etc. As you say it is a matter of compromise, in this case the smokers are being told compromise.
But Tom we also run up against the hypocrisy issue . As a driver of a motor vehicle, isn`t your demand, that smokers not pollutethe air you have to breathe, rather a case of you having double standards?
laurie S
Cars pollute but you aren't forced to sit next to one with it's engine idling when you are trying to eat. BTW cars pollute far less than they would if it wasn't for the nanny state imposing tyranical laws on the poor old oil and automotive companies.
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by Mick P
MR Saunders is arguing like a barrack room lawyer for the sheer sake of it.
Anyone who smokes inside a restaurant or pub is a selfish sod full stop.
I have the right to defecate in my toilet but not inside a pub for obvious reasons. Smoking is the same.
The best thing is to ignore his like. We all know the ban will soon apply to Scotland and then to England and then they can fork out a £4000.00 fine everytime they light up. They are spitting in the wind and represent a bunch of filthy, smelly losers.
The word I used earlier in this thread (scum) accurately sums them up. They are so selfish that legislation is the only way to control them.
On the other hand, I am more than happy to allow them to indulge their habit outdoors because the taxes that they generate helps to keep my tax bill down.
Regards
Mick
Anyone who smokes inside a restaurant or pub is a selfish sod full stop.
I have the right to defecate in my toilet but not inside a pub for obvious reasons. Smoking is the same.
The best thing is to ignore his like. We all know the ban will soon apply to Scotland and then to England and then they can fork out a £4000.00 fine everytime they light up. They are spitting in the wind and represent a bunch of filthy, smelly losers.
The word I used earlier in this thread (scum) accurately sums them up. They are so selfish that legislation is the only way to control them.
On the other hand, I am more than happy to allow them to indulge their habit outdoors because the taxes that they generate helps to keep my tax bill down.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
I re-iterate. If so many are in favour of smoke free pubs why doesn't someone open one up and make a killing? If it were a success others would quickly follow and you would have a de facto ban in the majority of pubs.
If you want to nudge the market in the right direction, then don't ban it, but licence it and (i reckon) quickly you'll find an equilibrium where some old school working mens pubs and pubs full of young people allow smoking and the majority ("family" pubs, pubs for nice middle class people, etc) don't.
Matthew
This would probably happen but for the connection between breweries and tobacco companies. Distributers make a lot of money selling cigarettes in pubs and they don't want to lose that. If you open a smoke free establishment where are you going to get your beer from? You may find it rather more difficult than if you allowed smoking. It's called the democracy of the free market (C) Laurie Sanders, 2004.
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by quickie
A non smoking pub opened up in my town,after an expensive refurb.
Lasted less than two months due to lack of custom........
Lasted less than two months due to lack of custom........
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by Mick P
So smokers spend enough money to keep a pub going.
Rather foolish spending habits methinks
Rather foolish spending habits methinks
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by Mick P
They are addicts......you will never convince them.
Regards
Mick
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 12 November 2004 by MichaelC
Interesting thread. A few thoughts from a social pariah.
My offices are no smoking. I pop outside if I want to indulge. Those of my staff who smoke pop outside when they wish to indulge. No problem.
There are already, in existence, a lot of no smoking environments: - trains; taxis; aeroplanes; cinemas; to name but a few. That's no problem. Or perhaps I should say that almost everybody has got used to these non-smoking environments.
Now extend the argument to smoking in
restaurants and pubs. Last night I ate at a restaurant which became non-smoking back in January this year. Trade has not suffered. I popped outside for a couple of minutes later on in the evening. It was no hardship.
Turning to pubs. The selfish part of me would not want a ban on smoking. One line of thought is that each person has a choice whether or not to enter a pub knowing that smokers may be found inside. However I would not complain if there was a ban. Why? It is no real hardship to pop outside.
Mike
My offices are no smoking. I pop outside if I want to indulge. Those of my staff who smoke pop outside when they wish to indulge. No problem.
There are already, in existence, a lot of no smoking environments: - trains; taxis; aeroplanes; cinemas; to name but a few. That's no problem. Or perhaps I should say that almost everybody has got used to these non-smoking environments.
Now extend the argument to smoking in
restaurants and pubs. Last night I ate at a restaurant which became non-smoking back in January this year. Trade has not suffered. I popped outside for a couple of minutes later on in the evening. It was no hardship.
Turning to pubs. The selfish part of me would not want a ban on smoking. One line of thought is that each person has a choice whether or not to enter a pub knowing that smokers may be found inside. However I would not complain if there was a ban. Why? It is no real hardship to pop outside.
Mike
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Tom
Tom ...aagain for the record, I have no wish to ban cars, or smoking, though both have unpleasant effects for me. I accept that I must compromise. My beef is with those who do, yet at the same time wish to reserve the right to impose their own unpleasant practices on other, and then justify it in terms of their own selfish "need". I am not trying to defend smoking
Your case is the familiar one I`m afraid, and can be paraphrased by
"my covenience outweighs your right to breathe clean air"...ie I am saying that the "need" argument is fatuous here.
The fact that you live in the country is also a red herring. The rules that permit you the convenience of a car also allow those in the city to use them...you cannot wash your hands here
As you said, no man is an island. All of us impinge on others in some way.
A hypothetical example:
My neighbour does not like the occaisional disturbance due to my hifi. I do not like the occaisional disturbance due to his noisy dog. We both agree to compromise. We get on fine
Then one day he decides that his need for a dog outweighs my need for loud music and tries to get a ban on me.........do I need to carry on?
Smoking is a Bad Thing.
So is overweight,swearing,drunkenness, bad grammar etc.etc. etc
To quote: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I also cannot come to terms with the logic that it would be possible to prevent me opening a bar for smokers, even though smoking is not an illegal activity
Would it, by absurd extension, be possible to stop me smoking in my own home because, say the electricity meter reader might suffer ill effects?
Or perhaps because by smoking in my own home, I need to redecorate more frequetly and by buying more paint and wallpaper than I otherwise would, I could be accused of contributing to global warming by my extra demand from factories that produce paint and wallpaper?
Where does the legislation stop?
I believe that we should try to persuade folk to live better lives. I am horrified by the readiness with which we introduce new laws and restrictions. Laws are blunt and invariably produce unwelcome anomolies, and manyn take us further down the road towards tyranny
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sat 13 November 2004 at 9:19.]
quote:
Living in the country I do use a car. When I lived in the town I didn't. When someone invents a non-polluting and useable means of private transport I will be delighted to convert to it. In the mean time society as a whole needs the combustion engine as there isn't an alternative. And as far as I know there are very few publicly enclosed spaces that allow cars in, engines running or not.
Smoking on the other hand serves no benefit to society and there are alternative methods of taking nicotine for pleasure, e.g. snuff, patchess, chewing wad etc. None of which have an impact on the entire atmosphere of a building.
Tom ...aagain for the record, I have no wish to ban cars, or smoking, though both have unpleasant effects for me. I accept that I must compromise. My beef is with those who do, yet at the same time wish to reserve the right to impose their own unpleasant practices on other, and then justify it in terms of their own selfish "need". I am not trying to defend smoking
Your case is the familiar one I`m afraid, and can be paraphrased by
"my covenience outweighs your right to breathe clean air"...ie I am saying that the "need" argument is fatuous here.
The fact that you live in the country is also a red herring. The rules that permit you the convenience of a car also allow those in the city to use them...you cannot wash your hands here
As you said, no man is an island. All of us impinge on others in some way.
A hypothetical example:
My neighbour does not like the occaisional disturbance due to my hifi. I do not like the occaisional disturbance due to his noisy dog. We both agree to compromise. We get on fine
Then one day he decides that his need for a dog outweighs my need for loud music and tries to get a ban on me.........do I need to carry on?
Smoking is a Bad Thing.
So is overweight,swearing,drunkenness, bad grammar etc.etc. etc
To quote: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I also cannot come to terms with the logic that it would be possible to prevent me opening a bar for smokers, even though smoking is not an illegal activity
Would it, by absurd extension, be possible to stop me smoking in my own home because, say the electricity meter reader might suffer ill effects?
Or perhaps because by smoking in my own home, I need to redecorate more frequetly and by buying more paint and wallpaper than I otherwise would, I could be accused of contributing to global warming by my extra demand from factories that produce paint and wallpaper?
Where does the legislation stop?
I believe that we should try to persuade folk to live better lives. I am horrified by the readiness with which we introduce new laws and restrictions. Laws are blunt and invariably produce unwelcome anomolies, and manyn take us further down the road towards tyranny
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sat 13 November 2004 at 9:19.]
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Tomquote:
Living in the country I do use a car. When I lived in the town I didn't. When someone invents a non-polluting and useable means of private transport I will be delighted to convert to it. In the mean time society as a whole needs the combustion engine as there isn't an alternative. And as far as I know there are very few publicly enclosed spaces that allow cars in, engines running or not.
Smoking on the other hand serves no benefit to society and there are alternative methods of taking nicotine for pleasure, e.g. snuff, patchess, chewing wad etc. None of which have an impact on the entire atmosphere of a building.
Tom ...aagain for the record, I have no wish to ban cars, or smoking, though both have unpleasant effects for me. I accept that I must compromise. My beef is with those who do, yet at the same time wish to reserve the right to impose their own unpleasant practices on other, and then justify it in terms of their own selfish "need". I am not trying to defend smoking
Your case is the familiar one I`m afraid, and can be paraphrased by
"my covenience outweighs your right to breathe clean air"...ie I am saying that the "need" argument is fatuous here.
The fact that you live in the country is also a red herring. The rules that permit you the convenience of a car also allow those in the city to use them...you cannot wash your hands here
As you said, no man is an island. All of us impinge on others in some way.
A hypothetical example:
My neighbour does not like the occaisional disturbance due to my hifi. I do not like the occaisional disturbance due to his noisy dog. We both agree to compromise. We get on fine
Then one day he decides that his need for a dog outweighs my need for loud music and tries to get a ban on me.........do I need to carry on?
Smoking is a Bad Thing.
So is overweight,swearing,drunkenness, bad grammar etc.etc. etc
To quote: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
I also cannot come to terms with the logic that it would be possible to prevent me opening a bar for smokers, even though smoking is not an illegal activity
Would it, by absurd extension, be possible to stop me smoking in my own home because, say the electricity meter reader might suffer ill effects?
Or perhaps because by smoking in my own home, I need to redecorate more frequetly and by buying more paint and wallpaper than I otherwise would, I could be accused of contributing to global warming by my extra demand from factories that produce paint and wallpaper?
Where does the legislation stop?
I believe that we should try to persuade folk to live better lives. I am horrified by the readiness with which we introduce new laws and restrictions. Laws are blunt and invariably produce unwelcome anomolies, and manyn take us further down the road towards tyranny
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sat 13 November 2004 at 9:19.]
You live in a nice world though Laurie and if people were nice like you there wouldn't be a need for laws. Unfortunately the world is not like that. Some neighbours would put a brick through your window if you politely enquired about the music. There are people out there who murder rape steal lie and I want the law to protect me. Your solution of leaving it to market forces and general reasonableness is, quite frankly, ridiculous and against all the evidence.
Why is smoking different? Approximately 600 people have died from smoking in the UK since this thread started. Most of them are poor so it isn't the Naim owning classes who are being slaughtered. Some of them may never have touched a cigarette in their lives. Most of them were trying to give up but were chemically addicted to nicotine. Alcohol enhances the craving for nicotine hence the association with pubs and smoking. How many friends of yours can't give up because they have a beer in a pub and cigarettes are freely available? Christ, the Marlboro girls go around giving them away in pubs just to break the will of the last of the hold-outs. Market forces won't work Laurie, you only have to find out about how the tobacco companies are now pursuing new victims in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe to know that.
[This message was edited by DLF on Sat 13 November 2004 at 14:39.]
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
So really you're proposing to ban or otherwise restrict the sale of tobacco?
That's a much more rational approach, it would actually achieve something and is morally consistent.
Paul
That's a much more rational approach, it would actually achieve something and is morally consistent.
Paul
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Mick P
Paul
Banning tobacco is ludicrous as it raises piles of tax revenue. I dont object if millions of idiots want to puff away and kill themselves as long as they do it outdoors and away from children.
I cannot see anything wrong with banning it indoors and letting them indulge outdoors.
Regards
Mick
Banning tobacco is ludicrous as it raises piles of tax revenue. I dont object if millions of idiots want to puff away and kill themselves as long as they do it outdoors and away from children.
I cannot see anything wrong with banning it indoors and letting them indulge outdoors.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Paul Ranson
Not even indoors in the privacy of their own child free home?
One fanatic up thread even wanted to make it illegal for women to smoke while pregnant, indoors or out.
It's pretty gross to support the promotion of smoking on the basis of tax revenues. I don't think it's that much, and it's mostly a tax upon the poor. IMO doing away with tobacco would be nothing but a good thing.
But while it is a legal activity I think the willingness of politicians and people with an abnormal reaction to smoke to restrict the freedom of a private individual to operate a business, or a train company to operate a smoking compartment is thin end of the freedom wedge stuff.
Paul
One fanatic up thread even wanted to make it illegal for women to smoke while pregnant, indoors or out.
It's pretty gross to support the promotion of smoking on the basis of tax revenues. I don't think it's that much, and it's mostly a tax upon the poor. IMO doing away with tobacco would be nothing but a good thing.
But while it is a legal activity I think the willingness of politicians and people with an abnormal reaction to smoke to restrict the freedom of a private individual to operate a business, or a train company to operate a smoking compartment is thin end of the freedom wedge stuff.
Paul
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Mick P
Paul
Any woman who smokes whilst pregnant is an uncaring, irresponsible bitch.
It would be nigh impossible to make pregnant smoking illegal but social pressure would be helpful.
I have even seen women smoking in cars with a baby strapped in the back seat and that is also irresponsible to the nth degree. That is non consensual passive smoking with a vengence.
There is no defence of smoking indoors.
Regards
Mick
Any woman who smokes whilst pregnant is an uncaring, irresponsible bitch.
It would be nigh impossible to make pregnant smoking illegal but social pressure would be helpful.
I have even seen women smoking in cars with a baby strapped in the back seat and that is also irresponsible to the nth degree. That is non consensual passive smoking with a vengence.
There is no defence of smoking indoors.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
So really you're proposing to ban or otherwise restrict the sale of tobacco?
That's a much more rational approach, it would actually achieve something and is morally consistent.
Paul
I think it would be more effective to restrict rather than ban it, keeps the criminals out. Nicotine is only as addictive as heroin or cocaine but in practice it is far harder to give up simply because of the availability. I think it would be reasonable to have to apply for a license to allow smoking - a bit like certain cafes in Amsterdam. Smokers can smoke, have places to smoke socially and people who are trying to give up or haven't started yet can avoid it.
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Quote:
------------------------------------------
posted Fri 12 November 04 19:30
I read this thread with a sense of increduility.
MR Saunders is arguing like a barrack room lawyer for the sheer sake of it.
Anyone who smokes inside a restaurant or pub is a selfish sod full stop.
I have the right to defecate in my toilet but not inside a pub for obvious reasons. Smoking is the same.
The best thing is to ignore his like. We all know the ban will soon apply to Scotland and then to England and then they can fork out a £4000.00 fine everytime they light up. They are spitting in the wind and represent a bunch of filthy, smelly losers.
The word I used earlier in this thread (scum) accurately sums them up. They are so selfish that legislation is the only way to control them
----------------------------------------------
Mick, or should that be: MR PARRY
Just a couple of questions:
(1) Is a Barrack Room Lawyer someone who presents an argument you cannot counter using reason, rather than
(2) your use of bad language...is it just a ploy to make us think you are more coarse and stupid than is really the case. After all, with an IQ like yours, you must be very bashful
(3) do you resort to abuse and bad language every time someone suggests something you disagree with. I think it disgraceful that you might use such language in the presence of impressionable youngsters like myself. There ought to be a law against it.
I propose a ban on bad language and abuse on this forum, but to be fair, only in respect of Mr Parry
I`ve tried taking your advice, and ignoring you, but obviously my willpower isn`t up to it
Laurie S
------------------------------------------
posted Fri 12 November 04 19:30
I read this thread with a sense of increduility.
MR Saunders is arguing like a barrack room lawyer for the sheer sake of it.
Anyone who smokes inside a restaurant or pub is a selfish sod full stop.
I have the right to defecate in my toilet but not inside a pub for obvious reasons. Smoking is the same.
The best thing is to ignore his like. We all know the ban will soon apply to Scotland and then to England and then they can fork out a £4000.00 fine everytime they light up. They are spitting in the wind and represent a bunch of filthy, smelly losers.
The word I used earlier in this thread (scum) accurately sums them up. They are so selfish that legislation is the only way to control them
----------------------------------------------
Mick, or should that be: MR PARRY
Just a couple of questions:
(1) Is a Barrack Room Lawyer someone who presents an argument you cannot counter using reason, rather than
(2) your use of bad language...is it just a ploy to make us think you are more coarse and stupid than is really the case. After all, with an IQ like yours, you must be very bashful
(3) do you resort to abuse and bad language every time someone suggests something you disagree with. I think it disgraceful that you might use such language in the presence of impressionable youngsters like myself. There ought to be a law against it.
I propose a ban on bad language and abuse on this forum, but to be fair, only in respect of Mr Parry
I`ve tried taking your advice, and ignoring you, but obviously my willpower isn`t up to it
Laurie S
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Mick P
"`I've tried taking your advice, and ignoring you, but obviously my willpower isn`t up to it
Quote...failed barrack room lawyer.
Then try harder you useless article
Quote...failed barrack room lawyer.
Then try harder you useless article
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
PS Nobody has explained the Witherspoons effect to me yet. Why, if no smoking pubs would be so popular, is a decision to ban smoking in a pub seen as commercial suicide? Surely such pubs will be packed to the rafters?
A group of us went to the pub this week.
With six non-smokers, the one smoking member of the group refused to settle in the non-smoking section.
It only takes one such person out of each group to refuse to go, and the question becomes whether to leave them out of the group, or put up with a smoking pub.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
Posted on: 13 November 2004 by NaimDropper
quote:
A group of us went to the pub this week.
With six non-smokers, the one smoking member of the group refused to settle in the non-smoking section.
Rude, inconsiderate behavior. Even by American standards.
Did he need to smoke the entire time or could he have excused himself to the smoking section / outside for the occasional break?
Smoking's been banned in pubs in several areas around the USA. I was in NYC a couple of weeks ago crawling the jazz scene and the smoke-free venues were an absolute delight.
And they didn't make me crave my old habit...
In Ohio there is no such ban and I called one of the bands I played in my "smoky bar band". My expensive bass and amplifier gear stunk up my music room for weeks after a gig.
We'll probably have a similar ban soon enough, but we are so close to tobacco country it will take us longer than it did NY or other places.
David