Step to the left or right, slow down and let them get way ahead or speed up and get in front. Damn there's 4 choices for you - pick 1

 

smoking is kewl

 

on a cold morning... what a nice smell...

 

You are joking! Now you really are being silly. There's hundreds of other people getting of the same train, stepping left or right means behind a different smoker half the time. Yeah, slowing down or speeding up 'really' is an option on the busiest station in the country.

 

But Dracoro, YOU have a choice. Not the smoker, he can do as he pleases because YOU have a choice to avoid him and the other 100's climbing off the train.

 

as I said before dave you are blind to my original post

the law should be that any estblishment allowing smoking should be required to have proper air cleansing/filtration so as not to affect non smoking customers (i have and it works )

my own guess is you have the militance of some ex smokers who now feel holier than thou with regards to the poor smokers out there

 

Ollyk - where do you draw the line of freedom v offending / killing others.

Should people who enjoy a good w@nk be allowed to go down the pub and have a good toss in the public bar (obviously wouldn't be allowed to go in the lounge).

Now w@nking wouldn't actually affect my health - but I wouldn't want to see any more w@nkers down the pub than are already there .

 

If ONE person dies as a result that is one too many Olly.

So

1) Irrelevant Question
2) Irrelevant Question
3) Irrelevant Question
4) Irrelevant Question

Smokers have the choice to smoke elsewhere.

Somebody working in a bar would have to leave their job. Just a small difference there then.

As said earlier, Scotland is about to go Zero Tolerance on smoking anywhere public that has less than 75% exposure to the elements.

Has there been a national outcry?

No.

Have smokers been up in arms?

No.

Will the world come to an end because of it?

No.

 

Gee let me clarify, ...stood next to somebody who was smoking.

Thorold Arms
Main Street
Marston
Grantham Lincs
NG32 2HH

http://www.grantham-online.co.uk/pp/...l.asp?id=27354

 

So you either make sure you get off first or you sit on the train till it clears. I can't say I've ever had a problem with it at St Pancras or Kings Cross.

 

originally i thought that giving up smoking was an intelligent thing to do so i did it but i must say that there are several non smokers here who not only do they prove they arent intelligent but i even wonder whether they should stay at home keeping themselves out of the gene pool

 

FFS, the way some of you go on, you'd thing you're sentenced to an immediate death as soon as you accidentally inhale one breath of smoke.

I can understand the "smelly clothes" thing, i'm a smoker and cant stand that either, but going on about "health risks" from inhaling a bit of smoke every now and then, you're not all going to keele over and die straight away.

When did we all become such soft *****!!

 

I would object if non-smokers were forced to smoke, they aren't.

It may do if they have an STD and splash you.

I wasn't aware that people had ever had that provided to them as a valid choice and then had it taken away, but feel free to show me when it was legal to have a **** in public in a pub and I'll pass comment.

 

I blame 9 years of being butt f*cked by Tony and his mob, I used to have a lovely pert bum

 

I'll stick to my current policy of avoiding smokers & w@nkers when out and about then

 

The smoker has the choice to spark up when he's away from the crowd. The same as I wouldn't let off a great big fart in the middle of the same crowd. I have RESPECT for others you see, something that certain smokers do not have (and you support). If I wanna fart, I do it away from other people as I have RESPECT for them and don't wish to force them to smell my guffs. I don't say "well, get out the way of my farts then" as I'm not as pathetic as the inconsiderate smokers.

Anyway, I give up. You're clearly on the side of the smoker and don't listen to reason.

 

w@nker

 

OllyK - I've been away from my Pc.

Ok, have caught up with the thread now.


Where I agree with much of your comments in theory, I question them in practise. "Asking landlords" to ban smoking to suit ones self, or to "make provision" for non-smokers?? You would get laughed at. If you are being serious you're way out of touch with reality. It's idealistic to suggest that - however massively unrealistic, really.....it is.

You talk of "free and democratic" rights. Now, my NOT smoking does not affect the health of a smoker (other than improve it) - however the opposite cannot be said. My NOT smoking does not cause a bad smell on a smoker. Smoking has no other affect on a non-smoker other than negatives.

It is my "right" to swear, however I have the decency not to do so in public, for example.

From what I can see, all of your argument is based on "cos that's the way it's always been" and from that you consider smoking to be normal. I do not consider it to be so.

Smoking has a negative effect on all - it intrinses on my rights. On the flipside a smoker's rights are also affected if a ban is in place, however you have to base this on degrees - and the former is more preferable....for ALL parties (even if the smoker doesn't like it).

Common sense, respect for others should be the ideal - however that'll never be so. As such, law will dictate ; and in this instance so it should.

 

there is a man who preaches and does not practice the same

 

Oih - an occaisional w@nk does not a w@nker make

 

the bigman have you read all of thread???

I suggested another way, which in my view(as a non smoker) is a way in which there is no ban... how much should we allow to be banned because you may die(alledgedly/possibly/in certain circumstances)

whats next Imprezas????

wher do we stop???

 

Very good googling skills there Olly, May I suggest you be aware of Grantham and its areas before suggesting somewhere though? MARSTON in in a region of Grantham, it would take me a good 10 minutes BY CAR (meaning I cant drink anyway) to travel up the A1 (yes thats a major road so no walking up there Im afraid) and drink in a pub thats in a village populated by 11 fingered Lincolnshire freaks

So no choice there then.

 

So, with that said, if a ban IS imposed you would therefore accept it, and as such would no longer pass comment??

Law doesn't always make something right or something wrong.

Both are unsociable, it's just smoking has become "accepted" as it's been around since we can all remember and beyond.

If Taking a dump in a pub was something that had "always happened", then suddenly people that chose not to do this started asking for it to be banned - would you stick up for those that **** on a pub floor saying that people that do not do this should go elsewhere??

I certainly hope that your answer is yes - as there is no difference here, none whatsoever.

 

TBM would you go to a pub that allowed people to **** on the floor coz I certainly wouldn't

 

TBM
once again your answer bears no relation to the point that as there is presently available the equipment to remove smoke and filter the air in pubs and even provide a naturally high air pressure zone behind the bar or any region in a room that if legislation is necessary surely it should be the mandatory fitment of such rather than banning.

as for the other part of your argument - believe me you would be disgusted as to the behaviour of a lot of customers in pubs and i for one would prefer that people behave rather than not smoked.

I still say that "militant anti smokers" are as closed as any other biggot

be it racial, political,religeous or any other cause

 

In our office there are 25 people

All but 2 of us smoke. Fortunately they have to go outside to smoke but it is sad to see them huddled there in the cold. I do object to the mess they make too.

In fact, 1 of them has given up recently and apart from the usual feeling better stuff, he reckons he is now getting more work done as well!! Probably right as he doesn't spend 5-10 mins every hour hanging around the front door!

I am an ex-smoker but I have to say I find the whole thing abhorant and pathetic. I wish I'd never started, I truly do.

 

I'm not discussing "air filtration systems" with scoobynet users - with all due respect of course.

I'm discussing the moral issues that encompass the issue on the whole.

Thanks for the biggot comment.

 

so it is morally correct to affect anyones behaviour if someone else disapproves or feels it to be hazardous ???

ergo ban pubs,scoobies, parachuting,rock climbing, skateboarding,electric buggies, blah

because lots of people will complain about and there are statistics to prove etc

great world you want

 

No-one 'feels it to be hazardous', it IS hazardous. FACT.

I don't walk around throwing mud in peoples faces and over their clothes, why should smokers be treated as anything better.

 

welcome to the world of book burnings