Ban on "Smoking" in licensed premises/Pubs etc, Right or Wrong ??..

Paddy20

POLL:- The decision to ban smoking in licensed premises/Pubs etc. From January 2004, is already creating heated public debate.

Is it a blatant denial of the civil right of every - Mature citizens - "Right to choose" ?..

feylya

Originally posted by Paddy20
Is it a blatant denial of the civil right of every - Mature citizens - "Right to choose" ?..

What about the "mature citizens" who want to enjoy a decent pint without choking on everyone elses smoke? TBH, in this day and age, I can't see why any body takes up smoking. It does absolutely nothing for you apart from make you stink and waste all your money. Hey, if you want to kill yourself, doing it without killing everyone around you!

GreenHell

I find this argument very circular sure smokers have the right to smoke and don't non-smokers have the right to breath fresh air no not to passive smoke. Now we all now cigs are bad bad things and I'm looking forward not have a fag with my pint come Jan 1st.

Paddy20

Would allowing licensed premises to have both smoking, and non - smoking bars. Not have been a fairer more logical compromise ?...

P.;)

feylya

You do realise the cost involved in making two bars in one pub, don't you. Especially smaller pubs. The amount of money made wouldn't cover the cost. I think it's the first step to completely getting rid of what is basically a disgusting habit imo.

But it won't be enforced.

Boston

Originally posted by feylya
TBH, in this day and age, I can't see why any body takes up smoking.

Cause its cool
Cause it makes you look HArd
Cause it stops you from being fat
Cause All your mates do it



Personally i don't like it, and i think people who smoke need not complain about, the apparence/smell/attitude of others.

Thought i don't agree with this ban, pubs and smoke'y, simple as that, the two go together. this will do nothing but cost jobs.


as for the point about the mature person enjoyign a point with out smoke. Nothing is wrong with it, once he is willing to pay 20 euro a point for the pleasure, otherwise pubs will close.

GreenHell

Of course it would be, if they weren't trying to stamp out smoking. Their not going to but it'll cause a big reduction for sure.

Boston

Originally posted by feylya
You do realise the cost involved in making two bars in one pub, don't you. Especially smaller pubs.

do you realise the cost of a smokeing ban, especially smaller pubs? Everybody knows its bad for them, but most can't/wont stop, therefore they will stop goign to pubs

As for it not being inforced, Would you like the job of telling people to stop smoking in a pub. Put another way would you like to run the risk of being stabbed to death in a pub brawl just because someone has lite up? its happened already in new york.

Some of the pubs i know, you wouldn't dare stop serving a local even if he coudl bearign stand up, because of the trouble it would cause.

Paddy20

Do people not think that "The Owners" of small family owned - one bar only small pubs. Should have been allowed the option of becoming totally non - smoking, or remaining as a smoke if you wish to licensed premises?.. particularly in small - Rural areas!.

P.

Meadows

Smoking sucks and should be banned totally
I would love to go out on the piss and not come home stinking of other peoples pointless expensive pathetic addiction.
I cant wait!

Mossy Monk

if Micheál Martin is all against smoking why doesn't he ban cigarettes altogether? he is an idiot who has the health service in a shocking state

i'm against the ban

Emboss

i think it should be left to the gaffer if he wishes his bar to be non smoking he should have that option, if bar persons wish to work in a non smoking enviroment change pubs or job.

Meadows

that idea sux
then all the smokers (and non smoking buddies) would go to the smoking pubs and the non smoking pubs would have to convert back. duh.

GreenHell

The whole it'll cost pub jobs argument is bollox typical over the top reaction to any proposed change that effects something that as for so long been the status quo. If anything will cause a pub to close it'll be from insurance and wage demands. Honestly are going to stop going to your local because you can't smoke there anymore?

The whole can't stop or won't stop excuse is just that an excuse I know people well into their later stages of life who have quit with complete success.

5 years time we're going to look back at this and wonder why there was such fuss in the first place.

Cork

Originally posted by Paddy20
Do people not think that "The Owners" of small family owned - one bar only small pubs. Should have been allowed the option of becoming totally non - smoking, or remaining as a smoke if you wish to licensed premises?.. particularly in small - Rural areas!.

P.

It will be the responsibility of the owners of pubs to make sure that the law is implemented. I think that the days of smoke filled bars are numbered.

How anyboby could work in such an environment us beyond me.

The health effects of passive smoking are serious. It is a health measure - that is long over due.

Boston

Originally posted by Meadows
that idea sux
then all the smokers (and non smoking buddies) would go to the smoking pubs and the non smoking pubs would have to convert back. duh.

as opposed to closing down? thats their right. Personally i'd go where the crack is, and you would be surprised how borign and stuck up some of these non smokers are

Emboss

Originally posted by Boston
as opposed to closing down? thats their right. Personally i'd go where the crack is, and you would be surprised how borign and stuck up some of these non smokers are

rofl well pld man class..

gandalf

Personally I will be delighted when smoking is banned in pubs and clubs. I don't smoke (well a cigar twice a year on special occasions), Even my mates who do smoke think its a good idea. Theres nothing worse than trying to relax in a smoke filled pub and stinking of other peoples 2nd hand smoke.

Personally I would also prefer to see smoking banned totally as a lot of our health service resources are used up on the aftermath/side effects of smoking. (Oh course I know that will never happen in this country. Our politicians are just followers not leaders)

Gandalf.

Boston

Originally posted by GreenHell
The whole it'll cost pub jobs argument is bollox typical over the top reaction to any proposed change that effects something that as for so long been the status quo. If anything will cause a pub to close it'll be from insurance and wage demands. Honestly are going to stop going to your local because you can't smoke there anymore?

The whole can't stop or won't stop excuse is just that an excuse I know people well into their later stages of life who have quit with complete success.

5 years time we're going to look back at this and wonder why there was such fuss in the first place.

what are you basing any of this on? I basing it on conversatiosn with bar men, who will be looking for new empolyment if trade drops by more the 10 %, and from talking to chain smokers who just can't stop/ No smoker is going to go to a pub and not smoke, it defeats the whole point of having a confortable drink.

5 years from now we will look back, but it will be to laugh at this stupid law and how everyone ignored it.

gandalf

Boston they may also attact non smokers who avoid pubs at the moment because they are full of smoke etc as well. No point in knocking it until we see it in action.

Personally I think its a storm in a tea cup. People will always need to go out and meet they're friends. They will have to adjust their habits for this new law.

Gandalf.

GreenHell

I basing it on the pubs I go to and the bartenders I know, there ain't going be a drop in attendence in these bars, apart from one which is owned by a little ole lady to whom no law applies.

Where are your bartenders getting this info? I mean have people stopped flying since smoking was banned in planes or how about waiting rooms? Or any other public facility in which smoking is banned.

Boston

Might do Gandalf, but will these people be regulars.

As i've said i'm a non smoker, and i hate people lighting up in my company but i dont like to see goverment taking control like this (i.e. without any thought)

sceptre

Originally posted by GreenHell
I mean have people stopped flying since smoking was banned in planes or how about waiting rooms? Or any other public facility in which smoking is banned.

It's what the cinema owners said in 1990. "OMG people will stop coming to the cinema, we're all doomed, DOOMED I tell ya (and we can't enforce it anyway)"

Rural pub owners were quietly murmuring that their business was going to go down the tubes when the cops decided they might as well enforce the alcohol-limits on driving. Some pubs did close. Society is better off and more people are alive as a result. Call them casualties of preserving life. It's not directly related to this issue but the publicans have cried wolf before.

Boston

Originally posted by GreenHell
I basing it on the pubs I go to and the bartenders I know, there ain't going be a drop in attendence in these bars, apart from one which is owned by a little ole lady to whom no law applies.

Where are your bartenders getting this info? I mean have people stopped flying since smoking was banned in planes or how about waiting rooms? Or any other public facility in which smoking is banned.

Those are all things people have to do, people don't have to go to a pub to drink. so People who normally smoke in your pubs, are just goign to stop, their still goign to go out as often as ever and they are stil lgoign to drin kas much and if they want a smoke, their goign to stand outside in the rain? you really believe this. If your think their wont be a mojor fail off then smoking can't be much of an issue in your locals. Personally i'm talking about bars and pubs where 90% + smoke, and even a 5- 10 % drop in trade will cost jobs.

Boston

Originally posted by sceptre
It's what the cinema owners said in 1990. "OMG people will stop coming to the cinema, we're all doomed, DOOMED I tell ya (and we can't enforce it anyway)"

hmm, people still smoke in the cinema, and i've never seen it enforced to stop them. That said most people don't. Cinema and pub, bit of a difference.

sceptre

Originally posted by Boston
hmm, people still smoke in the cinema, and i've never seen it enforced to stop them. That said most people don't. Cinema and pub, bit of a difference.

I've seen it enforced quite a few times. Now (I'm not being smart here because I don't know how old you are), do you remember before the regulations were passed banning smoking in cinemas? The whole point of my bringing it up was that it was rather common before that, people did declare that they'd stop going, cinema owners said they'd close. Smoking in cinemas was far more common than on buses (which fell foul of the same regulation). Even in cinemas that had non-smoking sections there was a wispy cloud all around the room. It's been 13 years and it's a lot less common at worst, at best virtually non-existant. That's the change that the regulations brought on smokey cinemas.

(edit: That's probably all I have to say on the cinema issue to be honest. I'm just bringing it in to illustrate that we've already had this fight within living memory in another location. I'll obviously accept that for most people, the pub is far far more important than the flicks in their daily lives and hence affects more people)

Paddy20

As a non-smoker myself. I respect the right of mature voting citizens too choose if they wish to smoke, in any case how many people are killed by the drug called Alcohol*as served in licensed premises/Pubs!, every year in comparison to the number killed by cigarette smoking?..

Is our nanny state, turning in to a dictatorship, or what?.

P.

Lukin Black

Originally posted by Paddy20
I respect the right of mature voting citizens too choose if they wish to smoke

That's not what's in question. What's in question is the right of employees to work in a smoke free environment. And quit the rubbish about finding work elsewhere, it's not as though anybody with a job is going to give it up in this economic environment.

And it makes me laugh about all these pub/bar owners complaining about how they will have to close / go bankrupt. That's more rubbish. Look at the prices they are charging (for everything - the tax is NOT that much). They might take a dip, but it could equally be because they are ripping everybody off.

It's about time that all these bar owners realise that they can't just do what they want.

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
As a non-smoker myself. I respect the right of mature voting citizens too choose if they wish to smoke, in any case how many people are killed by the drug called Alcohol*as served in licensed premises/Pubs!, every year in comparison to the number killed by cigarette smoking?..

Is our nanny state, turning in to a dictatorship, or what?.

It's not turning into a dictatorship, at least not in this regard. Whether people are "mature voters" is irrelevant - it doesn't matter whether people are mature voters, immature voters, six year olds, tourists or mentally incapacitated. Your logic above seems to be that we tolerate drinking so why not tolerate smoking. Or that we should ban both, I don't know. Either way, the answer is the same.

The State has curbs on where alcohol can be purchased and consumed. These curbs aren't the same as curbs on smoking locations, they are curbs nonetheless. This is not an attempt to make smokers into legal pariahs. it's a health and safety issue. It protects the health of workers in drinking establishments and customers in drinking establishments. We take steps to protect people from the intake of alcohol, most of them based on limits on resultant behaviour. Being drunk and disorderly in a public place has been a crime since before you were born. Driving under the influence of alcohol and hence endangering the lives of the driver and others is a crime. Little by little, endangering the lives of others by smoking in enclosed spaces is being made a crime. This is a measure taken to protect lives. It's not being enacted in order to piss people off or to endanger the incomes of publicans. It's an attempt to save lives, save money on public health, save the State from being complicit in unnecessary death and ill-health and to improve the health of the nation as a whole. You want to tell me that's a bad thing?

Paddy20

For many years smokers have been increasingly targetted by so called Health Promotion Agencies. The introduction of mandatory "Health Warnings" on cigarette packaging has been in existance for a long time.

Alcohol packaging, which is a highly dangerous addictive drug carries no "Health warnings", yet I have too pose the question again which you conveniently avoided answering. Which drug causes more social harm and is responsible for more avoidable deaths per annum. I have never witnessed someone who smokes become violent as a direct result of smoking. I have never seen anyone be prosecuted for smoking and driving while under the influence of nicotine. I have never witnessed marriages break up due to one partner being a smoker. I could go on.

However, I think you probably understand whereI am coming from. Prohibition, in the United States was in the main a failure. IMHO trying to enforce unpopular legislation against smokers will I believe also fail. I believe Mr Martins political career is now on the line.

The state is now and has been guilty for generations of being complicit in unnecessary death and chronic ill health due to practically ignoring the social tragedy of alcohol abuse which has seriously damaged the very fabric of Irish society as a whole much more than smoking has or ever will?..

Lukin Black

Paddy20, I find it rather strange that you started a thread about the smoking ban in pubs, and yet have spent most of your last couple of arguments condemning drink as a greater evil. Perhaps you should start another thread on prohibition?..

Now, bringing up the lack of action on alcohol problems as a reason why smoking should still be allowed in bars is a bit pointless. Just because one does less harm, in your opinion, does that mean that it shouldn't be acted upon?

trying to enforce unpopular legislation against smokers will I believe also fail

Unpopular like previous bans on public transport, government buildings, bingo halls, cinemas etc? They're more or less 100% in effect. I haven't seen anyone smoking in any of the above locations since the ban.

As for smoking sections, split bars, exclusively non-smoking/smoking bars. That's ridiculous. Apart from the fact that as often as not, a group of friends will be made up of both smokers and non-smokers, often couples too, and does that mean they should go to two bars. In any case, the point is not about that, it's about employees being able to work in a smoke free environment.

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
yet I have too pose the question again which you conveniently avoided answering. Which drug causes more social harm and is responsible for more avoidable deaths per annum.

I didn't avoid answering. I demonstrated clearly that it was a stupid and irrelevant question, an attempt to divert the thrust of the discussion - alcohol consumption isn't the main focus of the thread, though I'll happily discuss it elsewhere at any time.

Incidentally the answer is two-pronged. Drinking alcohol causes more social harm (this is an opinion), smoking causes more avoidable deaths per annum (this is a verifiable fact). We take steps to attempt to curb the effects of alcohol consumption (the violence, the DUIs), I mentioned this. We are now taking steps to attempt to curb the affects of cigarette consumption (the unnecessary deaths as a result of smoke in enclosed publically-accessible places), I mentioned this. The answer doesn't matter though because it was an irrelevant question, as I demonstrated in my initial answer. Go read it.

Paddy20

Lukin Black,

I would hazard a guess that employees who wish to work in a smoke free environment are free to choose where they work. Ironically, many bar staff who also happen to be smokers have for along time been banned from smoking while on duty behind the bar!.

As for me bringing up the smoking - V - alcohol arguement. I believe that in our society at present the only place left for smokers to be able to relax with a cigarrette and a pint is in licensed premises. Therefore, they are inextricably linked and it is hypocritical for any Government to so blatantly attack the smokers so viciously while still practically ignoring a greater social evil.

Personally, I would support any initiative that is sensibly and sensitively introduced over an acceptable period of time in order to give people the opportunity to adapt and be educated as to the benefits of giving up smoking!, and also in very many cases alcohol abuse which leads to alcoholism. For the good of our society as a whole. However, Mr Martins jackboot tactics will only serve to annoy the population, and the consequences could be unpleasant in the extreme both for him and the Fianna Fail party come the next election.

P.

sceptre

Originally posted by Paddy20
it is hypocritical for any Government to so blatantly attack the smokers so viciously while still practically ignoring a greater social evil.

Doesn't make it any less worthy a decision based solely on its own merits. Heaven forfend that we should take the trouble to prosecute house burglars and pickpockets while there are still murderers, rapists and tax dodgers on the loose.

Lukin Black

Originally posted by Paddy20
I would hazard a guess that employees who wish to work in a smoke free environment are free to choose where they work.

I refer you to what I wrote a couple of posts ago:

What's in question is the right of employees to work in a smoke free environment. And quit the rubbish about finding work elsewhere, it's not as though anybody with a job is going to give it up in this economic environment.

Originally posted by Paddy20
Ironically, many bar staff who also happen to be smokers have for along time been banned from smoking while on duty behind the bar!.

Nothing ironic about it. What makes them any more special than office workers who can't smoke in the office?

Originally posted by Paddy20
As for me bringing up the smoking - V - alcohol arguement. I believe that in our society at present the only place left for smokers to be able to relax with a cigarrette and a pint is in licensed premises. Therefore, they are inextricably linked and it is hypocritical for any Government to so blatantly attack the smokers so viciously while still practically ignoring a greater social evil.

Paddy, first of all they can smoke and relax at home. Secondly, you're just after calling alcohol a "greater social evil" right after you say "the only place left for smokers to be able to relax with a cigarrette and a pint is in licensed premises"? Therefore with your logic, a smoking ban that will, according to many rather biased sources, close pubs, is actually helping cure the "greater social evil"?

sceptre

Originally posted by Lukin Black
What's in question is the right of employees to work in a smoke free environment. And quit the rubbish about finding work elsewhere, it's not as though anybody with a job is going to give it up in this economic environment.

You're (of course) absolutely right there Lukin. When we decided that existing health and safety measures on construction sites and up scaffolding weren't enough to save lives a number of years ago, no-one suggested that we tell the men in hard hats that they could always sod off and work elsewhere if they didn't like it. We took measures to make sure their safety in the workplace was improved and will continue to improve these safety features and regulations. Saying "well, you choose where to work" is a cop-out even greater than saying "well, you choose where to drink"

Paddy20

SIZE=3]Re:- Ban on "Smoking" in licensed premises/Pubs etc, Right or Wrong ??..[/SIZE]

OK, Back on topic. Even as a non-smoker, and non-drinker!. I still voted that the all inclusive BAN is wrong. That is my final comment.

P.

simu

I'm in favour of the ban.

It will take more alot more than a ban on smoking to keep Irish ppl out of pubs.:)

The ban would also reduce the number of ppl who only smoke "socially" i.e. when they go to the pub.

It's not valid comparing M. Martin's plan with the prohibition of alcohol in the US as he is not banning the consumption of cigaretttes in *all* locations - ppl can still smoke at home or out in the open air.

Lukin Black

Paddy,

I'll hold off on any remarks about who took the thread off topic* , but before you leave for your self-imposed silence on this matter, I'd just like to know if you frequent licensed establishments. Your odd position as a non-smoking teetotaller championing the rights of smokers to smoke as they have a drink is rather intriguing.

* Yes, that's a contradiction in terms, and yes it was on purpose

Paddy20

Lukin,

As a matter of courtesy. I feel obliged to reply too your question:- Quote; "If you frequent licensed establishments" end quote.

Very, very rarely nowadays!. I am not as young as I was and around my area in Donegal finding a quiet peaceful pub where one can completely relax seems to be becoming something of a rarity. Crowds and loud music are no longer my scene, which I hope you will understand.

Now, I think it would be best for this thread if I make no further comments, and leave the poll to those who wish to utilise their right to vote, and the posts to those who wish to comment further. As I do believe that the - thread starter - should in fairness to all, try not to become overly involved in the other associated problems which will spring up from this contentious issue.

Regards.

Paddy20;)

Moriarty

Originally posted by Mossy Monk
if Micheál Martin is all against smoking why doesn't he ban cigarettes altogether? he is an idiot who has the health service in a shocking state

i'm against the ban

If cigerettes were banned, the trade would simply go to the black market where youd end up financing the provos or organised crime. Prohibition doesnt work. Removing the areas where people are allowed to legally smoke, on the other hand, will most likely lead to a number of smokers quitting which can only be a good thing. Even if not a single smoker quit, it would still be a good idea.

nadir

I smoke. But screw the tobacco companies, bastards, ban it. Well at least in places which promote the smoking culture. i.e pubs

IMO, legalise all drugs apart from hard addictive stuff, i.e heroin, crack, cigarretes. But monitor it, Provide proper education and support. This would seriously damage the underground scene, removing the nasty elements. Basically accept the problem is there and try to deal with it rationally, in an understaning way.
Simply.... prohibition does NOT work. Its arrogant, ignorant and forces the problem underground. You can only stick you head in the sand for so long.

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddy20
Is our nanny state, turning in to a dictatorship, or what?.

Why is it every time the government passes a law, that some people start on about "dictatorships".

I can understand people opposing this law, but these "our nanny state is a dictatorship" style of comments are about as useful in a debate/discussion of this nature as "is our government turning into Nazis" or "Why don't they just bring back slavery while they're at it".

Why don't you go and learn a bit about what that particular term (dictatorship) means and then you might just realise how ridiculous that comment is.

Or maybe I mistook your originial intention. Maybe you aren't actually interested in having a reasonable discussion about this, and only started the thread so you could go off on a rant about the government, somewhat divorced from reality.

If thats the case, find another soapbox.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by sceptre
I've seen it enforced quite a few times. Now (I'm not being smart here because I don't know how old you are), do you remember before the regulations were passed banning smoking in cinemas? The whole point of my bringing it up was that it was rather common before that, people did declare that they'd stop going, cinema owners said they'd close. Smoking in cinemas was far more common than on buses (which fell foul of the same regulation). Even in cinemas that had non-smoking sections there was a wispy cloud all around the room. It's been 13 years and it's a lot less common at worst, at best virtually non-existant. That's the change that the regulations brought on smokey cinemas.

(edit: That's probably all I have to say on the cinema issue to be honest. I'm just bringing it in to illustrate that we've already had this fight within living memory in another location. I'll obviously accept that for most people, the pub is far far more important than the flicks in their daily lives and hence affects more people)

20 years ago there where 4 cinemas in my local area, now theres one, not saying that entirely down to a smoking bad, but i know of a few people who don't go because they can't light up.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
20 years ago there where 4 cinemas in my local area, now theres one, not saying that entirely down to a smoking bad, but i know of a few people who don't go because they can't light up.

So what?

When plastic bags were made expensive and so on, the plastic bag manufacturers were all complaining loudly about how it would ruin their business. Should we have stopped then and said "oh - well - people might lose jobs. Better leave the bags in".

Or what about when laws were passed about BSE or the livestock trade in general. Again, people were facing job losses....should we have said "better not pass a law...might cause some extra unemployment and that would never do".

I'm not going to continue....but suffice it to say that these are two small examples from hundreds of laws that our governments have passed which have had (or at least where it has been argued that it might/would have) negative impacts on employment on the specific sectors they have targetted. Were all these laws wrong?

Laws are not just about employment. I know its a shocker, but its true....sometimes there are other factors at play.

As for my smoking mates....they rage and they rant about the injustice of it all....just as they did when they were told they couldn't smoke at their desk (and it wasn't cause Mary across the partition was pregnant).Just as it hasn't forced them to give up their dayjob, however, nor their ability to go to the cinema, travel on buses, planes, etc. etc. etc., they reckon that they can adjust once they have to.

The funny thing is...most of them don't even associate beer with smoking. They associate being in a pub with other smokers with smoking. They'll quite happily open a tinny at home without lighting a ciggie. Indeed, most people I know who quit smoking, had to stay out of pubs for a few months.....but they didn't have to give up drink. I don't know of a single ex-smoker who has given up beer because they couldn't have it without a smoke. I know one who gave up coffee for 6 months, and I know several who did a similar "publess" stint, but that was because the pub was filled with other smokers and nothing else. Its hard to see them having a problem with a pub with no smokers.

jc

Now you work it out.......

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Boston
20 years ago there where 4 cinemas in my local area, now theres one, not saying that entirely down to a smoking bad, but i know of a few people who don't go because they can't light up.

But I'll bet that one cinema has more than four screens. And cinema admissions in Ireland have been rising ever since smoking was banned:
http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/mif2001.pdf

Cinema visits in Ireland (in millions) between 1996 and 2000:
11.48 11.49 12.39 12.45 14.88

We now have the highest rate of movie-going in Europe. Why do you assume that a smoking ban will ruin the pub business, when all the evidence is to the contrary?

literati

When plastic bags were made expensive and so on, the plastic bag manufacturers were all complaining loudly about how it would ruin their business. Should we have stopped then and said "oh - well - people might lose jobs. Better leave the bags in".

Ever try smoking a plastic bag? It's a totally different issue. Why not just tax pubs who wish to allow smoking?

sceptre

Originally posted by literati
Why not just tax pubs who wish to allow smoking?

Full-circle again.

Because it's a health and safety issue, not a financial one.

bonkey

Originally posted by literati
Ever try smoking a plastic bag? It's a totally different issue.

Did you even read what I was writing about?

I was addressing the issue that this new restriction on smoking should be opposed on the grounds that it will cost jobs.

Thats all I was talking about with that point. Nothing else. I was asking if other laws, which placed other restrictions, are also "bad laws" which should not have come in, on the grounds that they cost jobs.

So it is not a different issue at all, when you take it in context of what I was discussing.

jc

The Beer Baron

AGGGRRRHHHH!!

I hate this ****.
Oh! -bib-bib-bib-bib smoking is bad- a bibibibibibibuh- I shouldn't have to breath your smoke
**** you!- I don't like sharing the same oxygen with you plebes anyways- buncha pussies- 'fraid of a bitta cancer PAH!
I don't like hearing stupid people when I'm drinking- so will I complain about noise pollution, ban music from pubs and have us all sitting there in monastic silence?

If I did want to kill you I would do so much more efficiently than blowing Marlboro in your face. What they gonna do anyways- arrest me? **** it- if I can't smoke in a pub then I might as well smoke in style- pass me that joint- give me those matches...

I pity the poor **** who says I have to put my cigarette out. and I doubt I'll be the only one.

Christ this ****in' country!
what the ****'s going on at all- does the government even know which country they're supposed to be governing?

/me lights up a Coheba and considers a revolution.



</insane rant>

literati

I agree totally with The Beer Baron. To hell with all of this pseudo-liberal PC rubbish that we have in this country. You don't have to go to the pub if you don't want to!

Smokers should be allowed to smoke and not be hounded by the paternalistic policies of well-meaning bog-men. If you don't want to breath smoke either set up a nonsmoking pub or STAY OUT of ours.