Total Smoking Ban
-
mrmcfister
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Total Smoking Ban
Fabulous..I was in Shrewsbury this last w/e with the missis..went into a 'smoke free pub' the first in BG..bloody great..bottom line in 2 years we will be thinking what was the fuss about....in the USA the bars have seen more people spending.I know me and her will use bars more...I hate the stink of fags and people who smoke around me are basically selfish tarts and I despise you all....come the day!!!
-
planeterotica
- Posts: 7093
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Total Smoking Ban
As a non smoker i should be happy with this ban but i am not and the reason being that tobacco is a drug and if people are not going to be allowed to relax in a pub with a pint and a fag then they will take to other forms of drugs and those that do decide to go outside for a smoke will probably just role a joint, i do agree that something needed to be done but a total ban is taking things to far and as officer dibble has stated this is just the start and the present goverment can claim it was not their doing because it was a free vote but it was their idea in the first place.
Re: Total Smoking Ban
HOOOFUCKINRAY ! BAN IT ALTOGETHER. SMOKERS ARE A SELFISH MENACE !
Re: Total Smoking Ban
On second thoughts let smokers smoke - build pubs in the middle of nowhere round em up, barricade em in and let em kill each other !
Re: Total Smoking Ban
Paranoia is alive and well and living on this forum.
I hope you all realise that "They" run this site. They know where you live.
Mart
I hope you all realise that "They" run this site. They know where you live.
Mart
Re: Total Smoking Ban
If the internet had been around 25 years ago, someone would have been saying the same thing about forcing drivers to wear seatbelts.
Don't like smoking, but if people wish to smoke then that's their choice. But that choice has to be less important than the 30-40 people having to inhale the filthy fumes. With luck, as has been said, in a few years we'll have forgotten there was ever a time when people could pollute the air of pubs, clubs and restaurants without showing consideration for others.
As for all those folk, from "Dr" John Reid to the friendly publican, claiming it's an attack on people's civil liberties, I don't recall too many of them standing up for liberty when I was a kid and stuck in a room filled with virtual chain-smoking adults. Liberty exists for all, not just those you make your living from.
Don't like smoking, but if people wish to smoke then that's their choice. But that choice has to be less important than the 30-40 people having to inhale the filthy fumes. With luck, as has been said, in a few years we'll have forgotten there was ever a time when people could pollute the air of pubs, clubs and restaurants without showing consideration for others.
As for all those folk, from "Dr" John Reid to the friendly publican, claiming it's an attack on people's civil liberties, I don't recall too many of them standing up for liberty when I was a kid and stuck in a room filled with virtual chain-smoking adults. Liberty exists for all, not just those you make your living from.
Pervert
The Worlds Biggest Collector Of Ben Dover DVD`s
Koppite Till I Die
Remember - You`ll Never Walk Alone
The Worlds Biggest Collector Of Ben Dover DVD`s
Koppite Till I Die
Remember - You`ll Never Walk Alone
Re: Total Smoking Ban
right dave.davewells wrote:
> HOOOFUCKINRAY ! BAN IT ALTOGETHER. SMOKERS ARE A SELFISH MENACE
> !
> HOOOFUCKINRAY ! BAN IT ALTOGETHER. SMOKERS ARE A SELFISH MENACE
> !
Re: Total Smoking Ban
I have a recent example which supports your view Dave. I chair a meeting which is non-smoking. We have a break forced upon us by the smokers so they can go outside and have a fag. They dump their dog ends on the floor and this has led to threats from the owners of the building that we may lose the venue. When this was pointed out the smokers reaction was that the meeting, which is predominately non smoking, should provide suitable recepticles for their dog ends!
Re: Total Smoking Ban
"Liberty" is being stretched and stretched though isn't it?
Like I said, I will be happy not to stink of smoke but somewhere down the line you have to consider the further implications of what is going on.
Ask yourself this: Every year the powers that be issue more and more regulations and laws into our lives, fair enough yes? Why then does crime never go down? Why is society more violent than ever? If regulating is what we need, why is the world not a better place to live than it is, somewhere along the lines the logic is failing is it not?
This is an interesting point to make with the fact that of us don't want to be subjected to smoke, but like other emotive points of legislation/law, they are a good measure of how principled one actually is in the light of the bigger picture. It is not good enough that, just because one doesn't want a particular thing to go on, it then makes it alright for a bunch of smug synocophants in the House of Commons to wipe it out altogether, becuase if they (in their infinite "right honourable" wisdom) decide this can be applied to something else "similar" (even if, in actual fact, it is not) then they will just go ahead and do it on the grounds that they have effectively banned something they declare is similar outright, so if "x" why not "y". It's for our own good know!
Like I said, I will be happy not to stink of smoke but somewhere down the line you have to consider the further implications of what is going on.
Ask yourself this: Every year the powers that be issue more and more regulations and laws into our lives, fair enough yes? Why then does crime never go down? Why is society more violent than ever? If regulating is what we need, why is the world not a better place to live than it is, somewhere along the lines the logic is failing is it not?
This is an interesting point to make with the fact that of us don't want to be subjected to smoke, but like other emotive points of legislation/law, they are a good measure of how principled one actually is in the light of the bigger picture. It is not good enough that, just because one doesn't want a particular thing to go on, it then makes it alright for a bunch of smug synocophants in the House of Commons to wipe it out altogether, becuase if they (in their infinite "right honourable" wisdom) decide this can be applied to something else "similar" (even if, in actual fact, it is not) then they will just go ahead and do it on the grounds that they have effectively banned something they declare is similar outright, so if "x" why not "y". It's for our own good know!
They're locking them up today, they're throwing away the key...I wonder who it be tomorrow, you or me?