Smoking ban in pub gardens.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

deanoeagle Lindfield 13 Aug 15 9.33pm
Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? What about the rights of children walking down the street breathing in car fumes, are you advocating banning anything that gives off noxious emissions or just smokers?
Alert a moderator to this post

deanoeagle

Lindfield 13 Aug 15 9.33pm

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

What about the rights of children walking down the street breathing in car fumes, are you advocating banning anything that gives off noxious emissions or just smokers?

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 14 Aug 15 9.33am
Quote deanoeagle at 13 Aug 2015 9.33pm Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm What about the rights of children walking down the street breathing in car fumes, are you advocating banning anything that gives off noxious emissions or just smokers? Funny you should mention that - I was once harangued by a woman with a small child in a buggy for daring to smoke at a(open to the air - no shelter) bus stop, as it was seriously damaging to her child's health and welfare. When I pointed out to her that the child was probably suffering far more damage to it's little lungs from being parked near the kerb at exhaust pipe height she told me that had noting to do with anything!!!!! A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 14 Aug 15 9.33am

Quote deanoeagle at 13 Aug 2015 9.33pm

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

What about the rights of children walking down the street breathing in car fumes, are you advocating banning anything that gives off noxious emissions or just smokers?

Funny you should mention that - I was once harangued by a woman with a small child in a buggy for daring to smoke at a(open to the air - no shelter) bus stop, as it was seriously damaging to her child's health and welfare. When I pointed out to her that the child was probably suffering far more damage to it's little lungs from being parked near the kerb at exhaust pipe height she told me that had noting to do with anything!!!!!

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 9.43am
Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for. And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for.

And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 9.46am
Quote Harry Beever at 13 Aug 2015 8.55pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 10.59am Quote so many memories at 13 Aug 2015 10.49am What a load of pony. Anti smoking saying it will influence children in garden to smoke. Why don't you ban drinking beer in the garden while you at it. It's a pub for f*s sake. If want to take kids out GOTO McDonald's What next no crisp's or peanuts in case you influence some large person to get some pork scratchings by the bag load. Also, so what if they might smoke. Fk it, we need the revenue. I agreed with the smoking ban in pubs, because it was backed by scientific evidence of the threat of passive smoking (they should have allowed smoking only pubs mind). People who are annoyed should remember those people smoking and drinking, are paying for their kids education. Also, it a pub, don't take your kids, its really not for them, and there is nothing more tragic than 'family friendly pubs'. You wouldn't take them to a Rave, drop a few E's, so why make them watch you drink. Not a smoker but have no issue with people smoking in beer gardens. Live and let live as long as they're not blowing fumes into anyone's faces. A doctor once told me the revenue generated from tax on fags was not as much as the money the NHS spends on smoking related illness. Find this difficult to believe. It might not, its around the same. However, that statistic is biased by the fact it doesn't compensate for the premature death of 33% of smokers, and the saving that presents the state and NHS in terms of treatement and care for the kind of illnesses associated with old age and care provision (including state pension). Smokers actually save the state money when you look at the costs objectively. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 9.46am

Quote Harry Beever at 13 Aug 2015 8.55pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 10.59am

Quote so many memories at 13 Aug 2015 10.49am

What a load of pony.
Anti smoking saying it will influence children in garden to smoke.
Why don't you ban drinking beer in the garden while you at it.
It's a pub for f***s sake.
If want to take kids out GOTO McDonald's
What next no crisp's or peanuts in case you influence some large person to get some pork scratchings by the bag load.

Also, so what if they might smoke. F**k it, we need the revenue. I agreed with the smoking ban in pubs, because it was backed by scientific evidence of the threat of passive smoking (they should have allowed smoking only pubs mind).

People who are annoyed should remember those people smoking and drinking, are paying for their kids education.

Also, it a pub, don't take your kids, its really not for them, and there is nothing more tragic than 'family friendly pubs'. You wouldn't take them to a Rave, drop a few E's, so why make them watch you drink.

Not a smoker but have no issue with people smoking in beer gardens. Live and let live as long as they're not blowing fumes into anyone's faces.

A doctor once told me the revenue generated from tax on fags was not as much as the money the NHS spends on smoking related illness. Find this difficult to believe.

It might not, its around the same. However, that statistic is biased by the fact it doesn't compensate for the premature death of 33% of smokers, and the saving that presents the state and NHS in terms of treatement and care for the kind of illnesses associated with old age and care provision (including state pension).

Smokers actually save the state money when you look at the costs objectively.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Aug 15 9.58am
Quote DanH at 13 Aug 2015 2.12pm Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 2.08pm Quote Jimenez at 13 Aug 2015 1.34pm Quote Stuk at 13 Aug 2015 11.21am Beer gardens and parks. It'll be in your own garden before long. If you have kids you make the sacrifice on where to go and what to do, not the kids. Get yourself down the soft play centre and leave the pubs kid free. Well you say that but a lot of hotels don't allow you to smoke & over hear If you rent certain apartments your not allowed to smoke in them. You can however bring in a large arsenal of hand guns and automatic weapons. Good old US of A, It's fcuking mental I sparked up on a beach in florida, the looks I got fcuk me you'd have thought I just walked in her house on Christmas day and pissed on her kids. Meanwhile she however could quite legally have a loaded hand cannon (Desert Eagle .50)in her beach bag. Always knew you liked a fag on the beach. Where as you will smoke the big fella any time any place anywhere. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Aug 15 9.58am

Quote DanH at 13 Aug 2015 2.12pm

Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 2.08pm

Quote Jimenez at 13 Aug 2015 1.34pm

Quote Stuk at 13 Aug 2015 11.21am

Beer gardens and parks. It'll be in your own garden before long.

If you have kids you make the sacrifice on where to go and what to do, not the kids. Get yourself down the soft play centre and leave the pubs kid free.

Well you say that but a lot of hotels don't allow you to smoke & over hear If you rent certain apartments your not allowed to smoke in them.

You can however bring in a large arsenal of hand guns and automatic weapons.

Good old US of A, It's fcuking mental I sparked up on a beach in florida, the looks I got fcuk me you'd have thought I just walked in her house on Christmas day and pissed on her kids.

Meanwhile she however could quite legally have a loaded hand cannon (Desert Eagle .50)in her beach bag.

Always knew you liked a fag on the beach.

Where as you will smoke the big fella any time any place anywhere.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 12.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for. And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal. So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ? What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates. Smoking is a blight on society.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 12.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for.

So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ?
What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates.

Smoking is a blight on society.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 12.28pm
Quote deanoeagle at 13 Aug 2015 9.33pm Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? What about the rights of children walking down the street breathing in car fumes, are you advocating banning anything that gives off noxious emissions or just smokers? This is not an argument for smoking. It is an argument for the use of clean energy, which I fully support.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 12.28pm

Quote deanoeagle at 13 Aug 2015 9.33pm

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

What about the rights of children walking down the street breathing in car fumes, are you advocating banning anything that gives off noxious emissions or just smokers?

This is not an argument for smoking. It is an argument for the use of clean energy, which I fully support.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 12.31pm
Quote moylerg at 13 Aug 2015 11.23am Link to BBC article here [Link] It is not just about beer gardens, they are also lookimg or a ban in al fresco eating areas of restaurants, parks, and outside school gates. Makes sense to me (as an ex-smoker). Outside school gates? Back to behind the bike sheds for me then.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 12.31pm

Quote moylerg at 13 Aug 2015 11.23am

Link to BBC article here [Link]

It is not just about beer gardens, they are also lookimg or a ban in al fresco eating areas of restaurants, parks, and outside school gates.

Makes sense to me (as an ex-smoker).

Outside school gates? Back to behind the bike sheds for me then.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 14 Aug 15 12.47pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for. And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal. So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ? What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates. Smoking is a blight on society. No you don't, you can sit there and not enjoy the smoke. Just as you can walk down the middle of a road if you want, but don't be surprised if a car hits you. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 14 Aug 15 12.47pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

Smoking is a blight on society.

No you don't, you can sit there and not enjoy the smoke.

Just as you can walk down the middle of a road if you want, but don't be surprised if a car hits you.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 12.54pm
I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 12.54pm

I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts.
It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 12.54pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for. And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal. So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ? What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates. Smoking is a blight on society. You mean the same nicotine addicts who aren't smoking inside, for you rights. Its a reasonable compromise, that smoking in pubs was restricted for health reasons. Smokers have to go outside to lit up, maybe you should met them half way and stay inside if you don't like smokers. There is no justification for drinking either, but you're still in a pub. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 12.54pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

Smoking is a blight on society.

You mean the same nicotine addicts who aren't smoking inside, for you rights. Its a reasonable compromise, that smoking in pubs was restricted for health reasons. Smokers have to go outside to lit up, maybe you should met them half way and stay inside if you don't like smokers.

There is no justification for drinking either, but you're still in a pub.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 1.00pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Smoking ban in pub gardens.

Site Map

Sponsors