Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 8:59 PM BST. Where you can get any vice you want 24 hours a day - but you can't smoke in a single pub.
You've been to Brierley Hill then?
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,567
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ 13th May 2014, 9:25 PM BSTExcept it isn't arbitary or unfair. It *would* be unfair to everyone else not to have those laws protecting them.
So if there were two pubs next to each other and one was smoking and the other non-smoking, how is that not protecting people? They are given a clear choice to frequent the establishment they wish.
If we were to take your argument to it's logical conclusion, the government protecting it's citizens from consumer choices that cause ill health, then we'd have to shut down every Starbucks, ice cream parlour, chocolate shop, etc.
And every pub.
How many pubs were non-smoking before the ban? None, because in every group there's at least one smoker who'd moan if everyone else wanted to go to a non-smoking pub. As for people with allergies, forget it, just give up on the idea of having a social life.
And if you think banning people for being able to injest anything that is bad for them, when doing so doesn't affect the health of other people around them, is taking my argument to its logical conclusion then you've misunderstood my argument or logic.
Quote: roscoff @ 13th May 2014, 9:26 PM BSTThis makes no sense. Just reverse the argument. If you couldn't get any vice you liked 24/7 then you can smoke in any pub. Illogical Jim.
That was the point I was making, you can get any vice - except being allowed to smoke in a pub. Go to any nightclub in London and you'll be offered a myriad of legal and illegal chemical substances that are highly addictive and cause health and social problems. Usually consumed by the same hypocrites who blab on about how smoking is bad for you. The same hypocrites who want marijuana legalised.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 13th May 2014, 9:30 PM BSTSo if there were two pubs next to each other and one was smoking and the other non-smoking, how is that not protecting people? They are given a clear choice to frequent the establishment they wish.
I think earlier you said 1 in 5 pubs?
What if the one turns out to be your local?
Tough shit. Move to one of the other four?
Which all serve crap beer?
Quote: Raymond Terrific @ 13th May 2014, 9:34 PM BSTHow many pubs were non-smoking before the ban? None, because in every group there's at least one smoker who'd moan if everyone else wanted to go to a non-smoking pub. As for people with allergies, forget it, just give up on the idea of having a social life.
And if you think banning people for being able to injest anything that is bad for them, when doing so doesn't affect the health of other people around them, is taking my argument to its logical conclusion then you've misunderstood my argument or logic.
There were plenty of non-smoking pubs before the ban and large chains like Wetherspoons have stated that even if the ban was reversed, they would remain non-smoking. Your argument that you went to pubs where there were smokers because smokers are great and going to the pub with them is awesome, is not a valid excuse. 
Why not look up the statistics for alcohol related deaths, assaults, injuries, crimes, etc. and the cost to the NHS and the police before telling me that ingesting anything isn't bad for the health of those around them.
Quote: Oldrocker @ 13th May 2014, 9:40 PM BSTI think earlier you said 1 in 5 pubs?
What if the one turns out to be your local?
Go in, buy a pint and then drink it outside in the cold. Perhaps they could set up a non-smoking area by the toilets where you and the other fresh air freaks could congregate to enjoy all that lovely fresh air, that you love.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6225582.stm
it's a bit of a dead subject in a democracy when the statistics are so firmly skewed against lifting the ban.
To be fair, that is a seven year old link.
I guess they don't take a poll every year,
Quote: sootyj @ 13th May 2014, 10:03 PM BSThttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6225582.stm
it's a bit of a dead subject in a democracy when the statistics are so firmly skewed against lifting the ban.
Plus there have been newer, more honest studies carried out to establish a link between passive smoking and lung cancer -
I'll be the first to admit that living in a tiny room with a heavy smoker for 30 years is probably going to have an effect on your health. But in normal, everyday, pub style situations, the effects are going to be negligible to non-existent. Hence my assertion that laws are passed for the sake of social engineering and personal prejudice rather then need or practicality.
I'm not asking to be allowed to smoke in a maternity ward over the new born babies, just a chance to sit in a pub with friends and enjoy a smoke, a pint and a good conversation no matter how bad the weather is outside.
But as the fascists are trying to ban e-cigs now, that ain't gonna happen unless we get a UKIP government.
Quote: sootyj @ 13th May 2014, 10:10 PM BSTI guess they don't take a poll every year,
But they do take one every year regarding the death penalty and that has sky high approval ratings. So ban smoking and hang paedos.
RC. I'm assuming you are a smoker.
1. Do you truly enjoy it?
2. If you could give up immediately with no side effects, would you?
Well we live in a democracy not some sort of Startrek noocracy, so maybe just don't like the smell of fags. Maybe a ban on farting in pubs will be next.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
the last major poll on the death sentence seemed to be in 2003 and came out closer to 50/50 with skewing for specific crimes.
Quote: Oldrocker @ 13th May 2014, 10:25 PM BSTRC. I'm assuming you are a smoker.
1. Do you truly enjoy it?
2. If you could give up immediately with no side effects, would you?
1. Yes
2. No
I like smoking, it's part of my character and the nicotine makes my brain sparkly and intelligent. It also gives me an excuse to get out of boring situations and enjoy a bit of me time.
With all the anti-smoking legislation that's come in and the unbelievable amount of tax imposed by subsequent governments, my desire to smoke just to piss people off has increased exponentially. Just as others have said they don't want to go to heaven because it will be full of Cliff Richard types, I don't want to join the ranks of the non-smoking cry babies and their particularly dull outlook on life.
Not that every non-smoker is a boring, whinging, bigoted knob end who has been given license to practice socially acceptable bullying - but a lot are.
You've got to die of something it might as well be smoking, drinking, I'm not sure I like the idea of being a smug centenarian getting bummed by some minimum wage care staff, in an old folks containment unit.
I think there's a more flexible approach to smoking in pubs.
With out going back to smelly poorly ventilated smokers pubs, fans, smoking rooms more windows.
The idea that we should all be living as long as possible is a real false positive.
Quote: sootyj @ 13th May 2014, 10:30 PM BSTWell we live in a democracy not some sort of Startrek noocracy, so maybe just don't like the smell of fags.
I just don't like the underhanded and dishonest way the legislation was introduced. When the matter first arose, Labour said that they would allow smoking in pubs that didn't serve food and private members clubs. This was the case up until a month before the vote and then Patricia Hewitt changed the draft and made it a blanket ban.
Posh people gave up cigarettes a few years before and as they're our politicians, they voted for the ban. Now they want to do the same to sugar. Well done tyranny lovers.
Quote: sootyj @ 13th May 2014, 11:38 PM BSTI think there's a more flexible approach to smoking in pubs.
With out going back to smelly poorly ventilated smokers pubs, fans, smoking rooms more windows.
Could be a nice earner for the government with expensive 'smoking licenses' for premises.