Smoking Ban in Public Houses

growler

to the best of my knowledge a cold is likely to be less of a drain on the nation's health care system than lung cancer.

smoking outside, regardless of the weather isn't
"grossly punitive" it's simply inconvenient and unappealing.

As an ex-smoker you gave up (presumably) because you made an informed choice that your longer term health was more use to you than the £10 a day you spent on fags and the marginal pleasure you got fom their consumption etc etc.

This ban will simply facilitate the making of the same choice by more people easier.

I have never smoked a gypsy.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by growler
to the best of my knowledge a cold is likely to be less of a drain on the nation's health care system than lung cancer.

Let's introduce prohibition then and save the health care system some more...

smoking outside, regardless of the weather isn't
"grossly punitive" it's simply inconvenient and unappealing.

I expect the same thing might have been argued in Mississippi with regard to "Negro’s sitting at the back of buses".

As an ex-smoker you gave up (presumably) because you made an informed choice that your longer term health was more use to you than the £10 a day you spent on fags and the marginal pleasure you got fom their consumption etc etc.

Note the use of the word choice.

(As an aside, you end up eating most of that tenner you save - well I do anyway)

This ban will simply facilitate the making of the same choice by more people easier.

Replace the word ‘facilitate’ with ‘force’, ‘coerce’ or even ‘punish’ and you might be getting a bit more truthful.

I have never smoked a gypsy.

I did, but never inhaled.

Imposter

Note the use of the word choice.

Replace the word ‘facilitate’ with ‘force’, ‘coerce’ or even ‘punish’ and you might be getting a bit more truthful.

I can't see us agreeing on this anytime soon but imo smokers still have the choice to smoke, but only outside. If these laws are introduced then non-smokers have a new choice (as do smokers), to go for a drink in a smoke free environment. That choice doesn't exist at the moment.

I think the actual solution lies somewhere near your suggestion of smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs but how do you get publicans to agree to be non-smoking pubs? And what do you do in a small village where there is only 1 or 2 pubs? What penalties are there for smoking in a non-smoking pub for publicans as well as the smoker? And how is it enforced?

The last two are going to be the biggest hurdle anyway if the proposed changes are introduced.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
I can't see us agreeing on this anytime soon but imo smokers still have the choice to smoke, but only outside. If these laws are introduced then non-smokers have a new choice (as do smokers), to go for a drink in a smoke free environment. That choice doesn't exist at the moment.

It’s unlikely that there will be any consensus, but only because there appears to be a bit of a blind spot on the part of the more vocal pro-ban advocates here.

I have not suggested that non-smokers should not have a choice. While I myself do not mind smokers in pubs, I would probably favour a non-smoking pub given the choice, too. I’ve even suggested alternatives. The only one to have done so, from what I can see.

What I have consistently pointed out, by exposing the prejudices and flaws in the posts of others here, is that the motivation, and hence ultimately the rational, behind this pro-ban sentiment is not based upon health issues or choice, but on an evangelical hatred of smokers.

We’ve heard mention of socially progressive laws “designed to improve the quality of life of the majority of citizens”, disregarding the rights of the surplus minority, or jokes about smokers having their “fix” outdoors, regardless of whether it’s “lovely sunny” or “soggy, miserable”. In all cases the smoker is treated as if they are an untermench, worthy only of contempt and scorn.

So it frankly appears that it is no longer a question of choice, but of social segregation and of punishment. As if smokers should be further made to pay for their addiction or that their mere presence is somehow an unwelcome reminder to many ex-smokers of their own former weakness. And frankly the argument that making life a misery for smokers would encourage more to give up would be laughable, were it not so offensive.

Given such a thinly veiled motivation, I would question any policy that was built upon it, but my real contempt is directed towards those who self-righteously pursue such agendas of hate; as I said, complete tossers.

Lemming

Having smoking and non-smoking pubs a) defeats the purpose of the "no smoking in the workplace" rule and b) will not work

Let me elaborate on point b.

Pub 'A' goes non-smoking whilst pub 'b' goes smoking. Five friends go for a night out. One smokes. If he wants to smoke, he has to go to pub 'b', so the others say 'feck it' and go along. So pub 'A' loses out. Pub 'A' continues to lose out week in and week out, and then reverses its policy and we are back to the current status quo.

I'd be far more in favour of dangling a carrot in front of the publicans greedy noses. Meet specific criteria for providing a decent air quality or it's a non-smoking environment for you. Damned if they don't and damned if they do since either way it's gonna cost them money.

Jimi-Spandex

As a smoker, I wholeheartedly agree with Corinthian. This ban is quite punitive and I am seeing a lack of understanding on the part of whiney non-smokers that our purpose in smoking is not solely to irritate you(Though it is a bonus), it is an addiction. Its also lovely with a pint.

I also acknowledge your right to drink in a clean air enviroment, if this can be acheived without denying my enjoyment, why not implement it in that manner? All that needs to be done is as suggested, have smoking and non smoking pubs with price differences.

Can someone point any problems with this dichotomy?

rubadub

"So you think that regardless of the weather, smokers should be forced to stand outside to smoke?"
if they want to smoke they should go outside. nobody is forcing anybody to smoke so nobody is forcing people outside. how can somebodys right to cause physical harm to others be compared to somebodys right not to be subjected to physical harm?

"Let's introduce prohibition then and save the health care system some more..."
-im very surprised more arent calling for this (even if it was a sarcastic remark). people keep asking how it can be enforced. cannabis is prohibited and the publicans and garda can manage to stop people smoking it in pubs to a very large degree, so why not cigarettes. i'll say again, if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
nobody is forcing anybody to smoke so nobody is forcing people outside.

remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine.

All from the same post... :rolleyes:

rubadub

Originally posted by Jimi-Spandex

I also acknowledge your right to drink in a clean air enviroment, if this can be acheived without denying my enjoyment, why not implement it in that manner? All that needs to be done is as suggested, have smoking and non smoking pubs with price differences.

Can someone point any problems with this dichotomy?

yes, the problem is workers are still subjected to toxic gas in their workplace.

it is a ban on smoking in the workplace not just pubs and not just to piss off drinkers who want a smoke to (thought it is a bonus)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
not just to piss off drinkers who want a smoke to (thought it is a bonus)

You're an endless source of hate and prejudice, rubadub.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian
All from the same post... :rolleyes:

your point being??....

nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine and nobody forces you to take any of them, if you choose to and get addicted then its your choice. i would prefer a choice not to inhale highly addictive drugs while enjoying a drink of orange. if your point is that it is so incredibly addictive that people should be allowed to smoke in pubs then my point is if it is so incredibly addictive then there is NO WAY it should be let in pubs at all.

i'll say again, and again, and again if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine

if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine

if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine

The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
your point being??....

That your arguments are contradictory and your motivation is suspect.

Hence, anything you say should be treated with a large dose of scepticism.

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You're an endless source of hate and prejudice, rubadub.

maybe you missed jimms post which said
"As a smoker, I wholeheartedly agree with Corinthian. This ban is quite punitive and I am seeing a lack of understanding on the part of whiney non-smokers that our purpose in smoking is not solely to irritate you(Though it is a bonus), it is an addiction. Its also lovely with a pint"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
maybe you missed jimms post which said
"As a smoker, I wholeheartedly agree with Corinthian. This ban is quite punitive and I am seeing a lack of understanding on the part of whiney non-smokers that our purpose in smoking is not solely to irritate you(Though it is a bonus), it is an addiction. Its also lovely with a pint"

I did, he was talking about you.

Don't blame him, tbh.

Typedef

Originally posted by Jimi-Spandex
As a smoker, I wholeheartedly agree with Corinthian. This ban is quite punitive and I am seeing a lack of understanding on the part of whiney non-smokers

Boo hoo.

It's called karma and, smokers are going to get as much sympathy and consideration as they have shown non-smokers thus far.

Not that smoking particularly bothers me, but, when you get gombeans, who insist on imposing themselves onto others... it's kind of cathartic to see them taken down a peg or five.

Remember the understanding and consideration, you have shown in imposing your habit onto others... when you are smoking outside in the cold, while everybody else is inside.

Ain't payback a bitch?

rubadub

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That your arguments are contradictory and your motivation is suspect.

Hence, anything you say should be treated with a large dose of scepticism.

i dont see any contradicitons in my arguments, and dont know why you are so suspicious of me. i just would like people to think about the issue fundamentally . please tell me what you think my motivation is.

i think it is strange that you still havent answered the question i asked several times.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by rubadub
i dont see any contradicitons in my arguments, and dont know why you are so suspicious of me. i just would like people to think about the issue fundamentally . please tell me what you think my motivation is.

Read over my previous posts. I’ve been abundantly clear.

i think it is strange that you still havent answered the question i asked several times.

You address mine, and I’ll address yours, OK?

Imposter

Originally posted by The Corinthian
It’s unlikely that there will be any consensus, but only because there appears to be a bit of a blind spot on the part of the more vocal pro-ban advocates here.

You've got a blind spot too! The idea of the proposed law is to minimise the chances of health problems due to passive smoking. Now if someone decides to smoke this view is not important to them. If someone doesn't smoke but doesn't have an issue with passive smoking it's also not a problem. But for those who have a problem with it they don't have the same rights as people who can light up right under their noses.

While I myself do not mind smokers in pubs, I would probably favour a non-smoking pub given the choice, too.

This is nearly my opinion too. My problem is when you're in a pub that is so smoky you're eyes are watering. You can't turn to the publican and say there's too much smoke in here. He'll tell you to get lost. You say this to any smokers and you get the same reaction. Another thing is when smoke is blowing straight at you and you ask the smoker to move their hand so that the smoke is not blowing at you and if they do (and they don't always), by the time the next cigarette comes that request is forgotten. That's a bit of a 'tosser' reaction on behalf of the smoker, wouldn't you agree?

What I have consistently pointed out, by exposing the prejudices and flaws in the posts of others here, is that the motivation, and hence ultimately the rational, behind this pro-ban sentiment is not based upon health issues or choice, but on an evangelical hatred of smokers.

Yawn... the rational is mostly based on the opinion that smokers have no respect for non-smokers as well as sometimes the choice that the non-smoker (usually ex-smoker) has made that smoking is bad for your health and as a result they don't smoke only to have no choice in the matter if they go to a pub.

We’ve heard mention of socially progressive laws “designed to improve the quality of life of the majority of citizens”, disregarding the rights of the surplus minority, or jokes about smokers having their “fix” outdoors, regardless of whether it’s “lovely sunny” or “soggy, miserable”. In all cases the smoker is treated as if they are an untermench, worthy only of contempt and scorn.

See Mr. Spandex's contribution for the smokers attitude.

So it frankly appears that it is no longer a question of choice, but of social segregation and of punishment. As if smokers should be further made to pay for their addiction or that their mere presence is somehow an unwelcome reminder to many ex-smokers of their own former weakness. And frankly the argument that making life a misery for smokers would encourage more to give up would be laughable, were it not so offensive.

Like it or not non-smokers outnumber smokers. Passive smoking is bad for your health. Smoking will not be illegal under the new laws. It simply inconviences smokers reather than inconviencing non-smokers!

rubadub

somebody mentioned that noise will be next on the list to be banned. what if somebody in the pub had a radio on so loud that it was causing severe damage to their eardrums and causing "passive ear drum damage" to others, should this be allowed?


if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine... still waiting for a reply to this from ANYBODY.....

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
Like it or not non-smokers outnumber smokers. Passive smoking is bad for your health. Smoking will not be illegal under the new laws. It simply inconviences smokers reather than inconviencing non-smokers!

Tyranny by the majority?

Originally posted by rubadub
if heroin and crack were relegalised would you mind people smoking them in a pub beside you? or do you think they should go outside. remember nicotine is more addictive than heroin or crack cocaine... still waiting for a reply to this from ANYBODY.....

I was rather hoping you’d address my points as I’d asked you to too, but you’re not a fan of practicing what you preach. Anyhow...

Were heroin or crack legal; then smoking of the drug could be done in designated areas. This would not necessarily be the same room in an establishment, or even the same establishment, however both users and non-users would be catered for.

With regard to those who work in such establishments, I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of jobs that can be harmful to one’s heath (look at modern stress levels, for a start). Appropriate compensation (danger money, if you will) and/or vocational employment (e.g. many who work in the Café’s of Amsterdam are Hash users themselves) may be one suggested solution for workers.

Note I use the term suggested, because I’m not so naive to think this a simple case of us and them or something that could be solved casually on an Internet forum - however, I am suggesting rather than simply condemning. Smokers are certainly not blameless either, but neither should they be demonised and an attitude that promotes such division is doomed to achieve anything more than revenge.

But ultimately, if your attitude is one of ‘Us versus Them’ then there is no point in debating the issue - to do so would be as useful as trying to explain rap music to the Grand Master of the Klu Klux Klan.

And to date, you have given ample indication that you do indeed view the matter in such an extreme bipolar fashion.

growler

this is getting tired now , corinthian seems to suspect a conspiracy by a shadowy band of reformed nicotine addicts out to ruin the enjoyment of the addiction of a minority by the minor inconvenience of moving them outside for the duration of their inhalation, most other non smokers seem to accept it as a genuine move to improve the quality of air in pubs and therefore the enjoyment of the time spent in these pubs by both non-smokers and the staff (for whose protection this bill was introduced).

I don't believe there is a conspiracy, alterior motives or that this is the first step towards a ban everything culture.

rubadub, there is widespread support for this bill , there isn't likely to be widespread support for heroin use in pubs. Although going outside for a joint will now become a lot easier to do without attracting attention.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by growler
this is getting tired now , corinthian seems to suspect a conspiracy by a shadowy band of reformed nicotine addicts

Tell me where I even imply any kind of orginized conspiracy, or stop bluffing.

I can't see us agreeing on this anytime soon but imo smokers still have the choice to smoke, but only outside. If these laws are introduced then non-smokers have a new choice (as do smokers), to go for a drink in a smoke free environment. That choice doesn't exist at the moment.

The choice was always there. The market was never utilised. The fact that there aren't any non-smoking pubs, is just because nobody has opened any. If you were so interested in having a smoke-free environment while drinking, why didn't all the non-smokers tell the world that all they wanted was a non-smoking pub?

With regard to those who work in such establishments, I’ve already pointed out that there are plenty of jobs that can be harmful to one’s heath (look at modern stress levels, for a start). Appropriate compensation (danger money, if you will) and/or vocational employment (e.g. many who work in the Café’s of Amsterdam are Hash users themselves) may be one suggested solution for workers.

I agree totally.

Yawn... the rational is mostly based on the opinion that smokers have no respect for non-smokers as well as sometimes the choice that the non-smoker (usually ex-smoker) has made that smoking is bad for your health and as a result they don't smoke only to have no choice in the matter if they go to a pub.

I diagree. Most smokers will have some respect for non-smokers. Personally i don't smoke in public areas, with the exception of pubs. I don't blow my smoke in peoples faces, nor do i hold my cigarrette near anybody but myself.

We've learnt over the last number of years from non-smokers complaining what not to do, and we've obliged. The smoke in pubs, is not something we can avoid without totally nullifying the reason why we go to pubs -- to relax.

I'm not saying that you have any less right to relax without the smoke.

Non-smokers enter pubs knowing that they will encounter smoke there. It is their choice. If you want a pub without smoke go out there and find one. I daresay you'll be able to convince a number of pub owners to have such a non-smoking pub.

Like it or not non-smokers outnumber smokers. Passive smoking is bad for your health. Smoking will not be illegal under the new laws. It simply inconviences smokers reather than inconviencing non-smokers!

So if it inconviences non-smokers its bad, but if it inconveniences smokers then, well thats all right. Crap. The non-smokers posting here all believe that they have the right to a smoke free environment. I daresay most of the smokers that post here believe the same for themselves.

AS for outnumbering smokers, the level of smokers fluctuates so much that any stats are inaccurate. I know plenty of people who stop and start every week or so. Are these included in the non-smoking numbers?

It's called karma and, smokers are going to get as much sympathy and consideration as they have shown non-smokers thus far.

Thats nice. Then i'm sure that some non-smokers will leave the room when they want some air, rather than us smokers leaving the room for a smoke.

Not that smoking particularly bothers me, but, when you get gombeans, who insist on imposing themselves onto others... it's kind of cathartic to see them taken down a peg or five.

Lovely. We'll see how you feel should anything you find involving be banned. Wonder what would happen if boxing was banned worldwide? Since of course it has the effect of showing violence to the viewers.

Remember the understanding and consideration, you have shown in imposing your habit onto others... when you are smoking outside in the cold, while everybody else is inside.

You obviously have issues with smokers. Have they ever made you leave the room so that all the smokers could light up and relax, while the non-smoker is gone. Do you really think we like having non-smokers glower at us when we smoke?

i would prefer a choice not to inhale highly addictive drugs while enjoying a drink of orange. if your point is that it is so incredibly addictive that people should be allowed to smoke in pubs then my point is if it is so incredibly addictive then there is NO WAY it should be let in pubs at all.

I'm afraid i can't understand this reasoning at all. In all the time that i've been going out to pubs, i've never seen the non-smokers suddenly rush to the cigarrette machine, simply because they were exposed to the passive smoke.

I accept that passive smoking have a harmful effect, but don't try feeding me any crap abt it being addictive to non-smokers.

At the end of the day, i don't see the government banning the use of paint, Markers, or glue. All of which can give off harmful smells.

My answer to this thread. Is give the publician the choice. Give starting grants to pubs that want to start a non-smoking pub, and leave the smoking orientated ones alone. At the end of the day, it would suit everything else we do in life, in that it will be our Choice to enter a smokey atmosphere.

growler

while it's a nice idea to create incentives for publicans to turn their premises into smoke free zones , unfortunately most punters don't select their friends, family or work colleagues on the basis of their nicotine addiction levels so a smoke free pub would not be an attractive proposition for some part of most people's social circles. A blanket ban on smoking in all public houses removes the problem.
There is the small matter of breathing in second hand carcinogens , thi s is not an "inconvenience" this is a HEALTH HAZARD.

Corinthian, in answer, you accept that the ban may have positive consequences but you continually question the motivation behind it , if you cannot accept it at face value as a socially progressive law, common sense, and of benfit to the health and wellbeing of both punters and bar staff , then you must belive there is an alterior motive by persons unknown to inflict misery on nicotine addicts, organised or otherwise.

while it's a nice idea to create incentives for publicans to turn their premises into smoke free zones , unfortunately most punters don't select their friends, family or work colleagues on the basis of their nicotine addiction levels so a smoke free pub would not be an attractive proposition for some part of most people's social circles. A blanket ban on smoking in all public houses removes the problem.

Non-smoking pubs would at least give the non-smokers that option. The group thing of non-smokers, and smokers is irrevelant.

A blanket ban doesn't remove the problem. It just switches the problem over to the smokers.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by growler
Corinthian, in answer, you accept that the ban may have positive consequences but you continually question the motivation behind it , if you cannot accept it at face value as a socially progressive law, common sense, and of benfit to the health and wellbeing of both punters and bar staff , then you must belive there is an alterior motive by persons unknown to inflict misery on nicotine addicts, organised or otherwise.

Accepting that there are positive consequences to something does not imply it is a good thing on balance - look at all the employment that war produces, for example - should we encourage more war?

Of course there is an ulterior motive on the part of many (not all) anti-smokers, but I’ve never implied a conspiracy, organized or otherwise. The manner in which some posters here are frothing at the mouth at the thought of revenging themselves against anyone who’s ever lit up in a pub is blatantly indicative of this. Is it conspiratorial? No. Prejudice and hate seldom needs to be.

Originally posted by klaz
Non-smoking pubs would at least give the non-smokers that option. The group thing of non-smokers, and smokers is irrevelant.

A blanket ban doesn't remove the problem. It just switches the problem over to the smokers.

I would concur. The problem appears to be that many non-smokers consider switching the problem over to smokers as a just reward for what they feel they have been forced to endure.

I won’t argue that non-smokers are not forced to endure suffocating atmospheres by smokers, at present, or that there are many smokers who are complete tossers in their attitude to their fellow (non-smoking) man, however, this does not give licence to reverse the tables, allow non-smokers to be complete tossers and then call it progressive.

The moment one includes such barley subconscious revenge as a motivation for a law, as appears to be happening here, one loses both the moral and even utilitarian arguments.

Lemming

Originally posted by klaz
The choice was always there. The market was never utilised. The fact that there aren't any non-smoking pubs, is just because nobody has opened any.

You're overlooking one extrordinarly important factor here (well, two actually). The publicans, and public licences. Licences are few and far between in the first place. Then the publicans are trying to maximise their revenues, so will go for the base denominator. So irregardless of choice, the publicans were never going to risk their cosy little cartel money spinner. So you only have the ILLUSION of choice.

I diagree. Most smokers will have some respect for non-smokers. Personally i don't smoke in public areas, with the exception of pubs. I don't blow my smoke in peoples faces, nor do i hold my cigarrette near anybody but myself.

Well, you are becoming one of a dying breed sadly for the rest of us.

Non-smokers enter pubs knowing that they will encounter smoke there. It is their choice.

Non-smokers enter a nitelink knowing that there will be smoke even though it's banned. They don't have a choice other than "don't go in there" which isn't much of a solution. So what's your point?

But that aside, this isn't legislation to stop you smoking in a pub. It's legislation to safeguard the health of people in a workplace. Their wellbeing & rights come first since they work there day in day out whilst you frequent the place once or maybe twice a week/month/whatever.

If you want a pub without smoke go out there and find one. I daresay you'll be able to convince a number of pub owners to have such a non-smoking pub.

See my first point.

So if it inconviences non-smokers its bad, but if it inconveniences smokers then, well thats all right. Crap. The non-smokers posting here all believe that they have the right to a smoke free environment. I daresay most of the smokers that post here believe the same for themselves.

I'm sorry, but growler is right here. It's not an inconvenience. It's a bloody health hazard. How'd you like to work in an old building surrounded by asbestos?
<sarcasm> Suurrreeely you must have realised the danger with it being an old building, no??? </sarcasm>

Thats nice. Then i'm sure that some non-smokers will leave the room when they want some air, rather than us smokers leaving the room for a smoke.

My rights to not have my health endangered superceed your rights to self-gratification. You leave the room, since when I return to the room, it'll be laden with crap in the air.

Lovely. We'll see how you feel should anything you find involving be banned. Wonder what would happen if boxing was banned worldwide? Since of course it has the effect of showing violence to the viewers.

Go ahead. I consider boxing to be quite barbaric.

You obviously have issues with smokers. Have they ever made you leave the room so that all the smokers could light up and relax, while the non-smoker is gone. Do you really think we like having non-smokers glower at us when we smoke?

From what I've seen, the smokers don't give two flying f*cks what the non-smokers think since they'll light up when they want anyway. And yes, I've had to leave a room/enclosed space because the smoke was so bad it was stinging the back of my eyes.

I accept that passive smoking have a harmful effect,

Yet you don't see why non-smokers can get quite militant on this topic?

My answer to this thread. Is give the publician the choice. Give starting grants to pubs that want to start a non-smoking pub, and leave the smoking orientated ones alone.

No no no no no no. We've given the publicans the choice. They've not lifted their bloated arses to help one bit. No grants. No monetary help. Just a simple plain option. Either suffer a blanket ban, or show us that you have sufficient ventilation which meets criteria 'x' and we'll allow you have smoking on your premises, subject to spot-inspections and yoru licence recinded.

I will be perfectly happy to go into a place which caters to both groups. But until that is dealt with, the order of play should go as follows:
1. Workers rights
2. Everyone's health
3. eryone's self-gratification

growler

the viewpoint of non-smokers and the motivation for this ban is NOT revenge , hate, prejudice or any other personal vendetta against smokers it is about one thing only the right to breathe air uncontaminated by carcinogenic smoke.

Well, you are becoming one of a dying breed sadly

was that meant to be tongue in cheek ? lol

The Corinthian

Originally posted by growler
the viewpoint of non-smokers and the motivation for this ban is NOT revenge , hate, prejudice or any other personal vendetta against smokers it is about one thing only the right to breathe air uncontaminated by carcinogenic smoke.

Many of the comments made by non-smokers in this thread would appear to give evidence to the contrary.

(I've highlighted a number already in past posts; so don't ask me to do so again.)

Lemming

Originally posted by growler

was that meant to be tongue in cheek ?

oops

I made a funny! w00t