smoking in public house"s

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by tetleyman, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    As for your later post, I agree with the professor in as far as I never worried about keeling over due to the odd visit to a smoky pub either.

    I'd have a slightly different attitude - and I suspect the prof would too - if I was bar staff.

    And, unsurprisingly, you don't seem particularly concerned by even the possibility of it causing harm. It just doesn't seem to register in your attitude to your fellow man.

    And that's not to mention the other anti-social aspects of smoking, as I mentioned above.
     
  2. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    Mr Ha, Mr Ha, Mr Ha...

    I was paraphrasing when I said "Almost certainly due to smoking."

    If you want as near verbatim as poss:

    When my neighb told me the news, I asked how old she was. When he replied "7 years younger than me - about 57", I gave a 'bludy-ell, that's not old' look of astonishment. He replied to this "Smoking - it's because she's always smoked. The doctor said it was almost certainly a major factor."


    Now it's your turn Mr Ha: are you going to say on here that "it almost certainly wasn't due to smoking"?

    No, I didn't think so.

    Twit.
     
  3. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    da i am not suggesting anything other than i don't know and niether do you, but there are a host of other possibilities you have dismissed.

    the prof didn't say he wasn't worried about the odd visit to the pub he said
    "'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    full stop, no worry at all, anywhere.
    "suspect, possibility" so made up.
    As for bar staff, they aint forced to work there and in the past it pretty much went with the teritory.
    What next, ooooh i am a joiner but shouldn't have to put up with mdf dust.
    I'm a mechanic, i don't want to breathe in petrol fumes.
    "It just doesn't seem to register in your attitude to your fellow man."
    There are far worse things in our life than a bit of cig smoke, why not ban drinking in pubs it clearly causes more social problems than smoking, just visit any major city on a sat night.
    Never seen anyone stabbed by someone in a woodbine fuelled rage.
    Cars? oooh we can't do without those, no but we could do with a lot less of those.
    School run! never existed when i grew up, you got your bus fare and dinner money, walked instead and bought 10 tabs and a bag of chips.
    To go over the same thing again the problem is the fact that the freedom of choice has been taken away, not from the public but from the people who own the pubs, the people who should have the freedom to choose what type of business they run, you know it used to be, "the management reserves the right" and all that.
    What about non smokers, where would they go? Well if there are so many then i'm sure the pub bosses would see the gap in the market and fill it.
    This is just the latest in a long line of things the government are going to impose on us for our own good.
    Green tax this carbon footprint that ecco friendly rubbish.
    Dustbin tax, air tax, vat on aviation fuel, all rubbish they just look for as many ways as possible to tax us, call it green and fools believe it.
    The truth is the genie is out of the bottle and nothing you do will change it.
    You think stopping smoking in public is going to save us from the many other pollutants in the air?
    You really think unplugging your tv at night is going to stop the damge being done by india and china?
    Green? you can't even do a job anymore without having an oversized van full of every power tool under the sun, jesus we can't even bang a nail in or cut a bit of 2x2 without a dewalt or makita.
    Non smokers are happy to go along with a ban because it suits them but the tune will change when the cars are hit, pay as you go sir, mileage limmiters, all for your own good ;)
     
  4. Mr GrimNasty

    Mr GrimNasty Active Member

    It wouldn't surprise me tooo much if that was a
    smoker's opinion - they're not generally know for
    their altruistic attitude.

    No more! The cr4p rolls out your mouth again.

    The rest of us actually consider other people.
    You know, family, friends, the general population,
    etc.

    You lie so much, you believe yourself.
    Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
    Holier than thou.
     
  5. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    "The rest of us actually consider other people."
    absolute garbage, ultimately we think of ourselves, it is in our nature, we are all driven by greed.
    We all want more and give little thought as to what if any effect it has on others.
    Why do we have 5 tv's 2-3 cars, dishwasher? no need!
    Everything on standby 24hrs a day, drive everywhere, 2-3 air holidays a year, dig up perfectly good grass which helps the environment and replace with concrete, cut trees down to use as floor coverings.
    Buy cheap products from china, why, because they are cheaper, we are just greedy.
    People living on the streets or starving in third word, why when there are billionaires in the world who could never spend the money they have but want to keep it because they are greedy.
    I hope my greed is not as great as theirs but it is still there, i want things i don't need, i think of other people but not to a degree that will cause me any hardship.
    Why can people admit they couldn't give a monkeys about other people and are only happy with the smoking ban because it suits them
     
  6. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    Hi audi-e.

    I think your argument is built on sand.

    Let's have a look at your 'comparisons':

    MDF dust is an unavoidable by-product of the building process, and everyone in the dusty environment should wear a mask - simple.

    In fact, if you want to make your example a TRUE comparison with smoking, if the joiner took a bag of MDF dust down to his local pub, and started to hurl it around to the discomfort and possible danger of non-MDF users, THEN you might begin to see why smoking by others is so unpleasant.

    Ditto mechanic.

    (Sorry audi - that was a pitiful argument)


    And your case goes downhill from there on.

    Eg, it isn't alcohol that causes harm, it's its abuse. No-one's been harmed (to my knowledge) by standing beside a punter and breathing in the fumes of his pint of Tetley's.

    If the twit who was drinking it becomes aggressive, that's a completely different matter. But it wasn't the beer that was at fault, it was the twit.

    Ditto the rest of your ramble.


    Oh, not quite; I forgot your most feeble point yet - the loss of 'freedom of choice'...

    Good grief. Let's take, for example, the twit who drinks too much beer and becomes violent - we, quite rightly, remove his freedom of choice to be violent, because that's reasonable and it protects other peeps.

    Oh, sorry, I obviously misunderstood; you want the freedom of choice to inflict your disgusting habit on innocent people?

    Well, I say "** off".

    [Edited by: admin5]
     
  7. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    Hi Kandy.


    Twit.
     
  8. Mr GrimNasty

    Mr GrimNasty Active Member

    Hi DA

    Where's your crown, King Nothing?
    No, you're just nothin'
    Absolutely nothin'
     
  9. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    unavoidable? we avoided using mdf for many years, it is used now because it is cheap.
    Mechanic wearing a mask, yep ive seen lots of those.
    Alchohol, the fact is many people die directly as a result and many people are harmed indirectly

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3537257.stm

    http://www.merseyside.police.uk/html/aboutus/campaigns/arvcd/cost.htm

    i could go on, and if you think cigs have a greater effect on the quality of life of the general public you obviously don't live in the real world.
    The truth is the majority of crime and disorder is driven by alchohol.
    "Good grief. Let's take, for example, the twit who drinks too much beer and becomes violent - we, quite rightly, remove his freedom of choice to be violent"
    no we don't the fact is that most drunken assaults go unpunished, or have a piddling punishment laughed at by the offenders.
    "Oh, sorry, I obviously misunderstood; you want the freedom of choice to inflict your disgusting habit on innocent people?"
    no, the freedom of choice for me and like minded people to enjoy ingesting a perfectly legal substance in an establishment where the owner and the staff are happy to let me.
     
  10. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    "Well, I say "**** off".
    so it's ok for me to have to take verbal abuse from you?
    Under your rules i should be able to enjoy my computer without fear of such disgusting language!
    now get out, your barred
     
  11. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    Hi audi-e.

    It's "you're barred."




    Anyways, I was saying "** off" to your 'freedom of choice' to inflict your nasty habit on me and others, not to you personally.

    For pity's sakes, re-read your posts.

    Are you honestly - honestly mind - trying to suggest there's a direct comparison between smokers being able to inflict their smelly irritant and harmful substance on non-smokers, and the true freedom of choice of people to carry out other social activities such as drinking? (provided they don't break the law, of course - in which case their freedom to do so should - rightly be removed)

    Honestly? Really?!!

    I don't believe you think that's a reasonable comparison.


    Your 'best' argument so far seems to be 'why not ban driving, etc 'cos it kills just as many people as smoking'. No acceptance or acknowledgement that smokers DO impose on non-smokers.



    Time to be a bit more honest with yourself, audi-e, and us.

    But you won't - 'cos this is a public forum and you have too much face to lose.

    However, I am quite content to let others judge.

    [Edited by: admin5]
     
  12. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    i am not saying you should have to put up with me smoking, i am saying people who own a business should have the right, the freedom to choose what type of business they opperate and the staff should have the freedom to work there should they wish and smokers go there if they wish.
    The fact is you are forcing your ideals on me by taking away my freedom of choice.
    What do you have against a smoking bar, not the place for you, no problem don't go.
    I don't go to the bars full of 18y-old binge drinkers, it's not the place for me, my choice.
    Yes i am saying alchohol has far more serious effects on scociety than smoking, try a sat night out in a few choice bars in newcastle, you may change your mind.
    Non smoking in bars has never bothered me i still go out as i did before, i can go a while without a smoke.
    The ban is just wrong.
     
  13. Mr GrimNasty

    Mr GrimNasty Active Member

    Girls, girls, girls.
     
  14. ­

    ­ New Member

    Can we start a new thread on this as page 22 is too slow to find
     
  15. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    I would love to but as i am a smoker my opinions are not valid and am not sure if i am allowed the freedom to
     
  16. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    Hi audi-e.

    But where would this 'freedom to choose' end?

    I've just taken my car for an MOT. Nice place - pretty good facilities for both customers and staff. A few weeks ago, however, the smallish staff room would have been full of smoke, and the non-smokers there would have been putting up with it - through gritted teeth - as they've always done.

    Fair? I don't think so.


    Let's give pubs the choice then. In the last place I lived before coming over to Devon, there were two pubs in the village - and one was much nicer than the other (and both were full of smoke...).

    What if, given the choice, the nicer pub decided to keep their smoking status? Well, that's my freedom to choose the best pub - and no smoke - gone out the window. And why, just because some people who are addicted to a particularly foul habit have dictated it.

    Fair? Not from where I'm standing.

    And let's face it - the only reason that smoking EVER got into public places is because it's been around for such a long time - before it's harm was recognised.

    It would be a non-issue if it was discovered today - it simply wouldn't be allowed near non-smokers (actually, it wouldn't be allowed full-stop.). Just because it's always been like that, doesn't mean it's right.
     
  17. devil's advocate

    devil's advocate New Member

    And I'll chuck in the emotive card for good measure...

    You have kids, audi-e? Will you dissuade them from smoking? If 'yes', how can you justify your point to them when you yourself smoke ?


    If 'no', then words fail me.
     
  18. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    "and one was much nicer than the other (and both were full of smoke...)."
    nice pub, full of smoke?
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhha.
    Why would the smoking pub be nicer than the non smoking pub, it's full of smoke ***!

    Would you object to a new pub being opened, an extra pub so no old pubs are being lost.
    This pub would be owned by smokers, staffed by smokers and patronised by smokers, a place where smokers could go and have a few beers and a smoke? oh and we may swear and fart a bit too!
     
  19. audi-evo

    audi-evo Active Member

    Oh my kids don't smoke, their choice!
     
  20. Mr GrimNasty

    Mr GrimNasty Active Member

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice