BBC Home

Explore the BBC


24th June 2019
Accessibility help
Text only

BBC Homepage

Channel Islands
Guernsey
Jersey


Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 

or register to join or start a new discussion.


Discussion:

Unfair Ban

Messages  721 - 740 of 1019

 
First | < Previous 31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40    Next > | Last
 

Message 721 - posted by merak, Mar 7, 2007

it has been proven that smoking damages your health it should be made ilegal every where

Quoted from this message



I could agree - except that it hasn't been made illegal. Why is that, do you think? You're ideas on this will be most welcome.
Complain about a message      

Message 722 - posted by U7209542 - alt id 7 (all banned), Mar 7, 2007

One step at a time. Maybe next year.
Complain about a message      

Message 723 - posted by merak, Mar 7, 2007

One step at a time. Maybe next year.

Quoted from this message



why? It's such a danger. It should be outlawed here and now. But there's no sign of that happening in the foreseeable future far less next year. "one step at a time" isn't exactly an answer.
Complain about a message      

Message 724 - posted by patsy, Mar 7, 2007

malwood,

Quite the opposite, my brain is perfectly clear thanks to the absence of nicotine!
And if you are still waiting for an answer to your question after a whole year, then you should know by now there is no answer.
Why can't you just accept that smokers are in the minority and the ban is in the interests of the majority.;)

Darling Patsy - you are another non smoker whose brain is obviously suffering from lack of nicotine.

The whole point of the thread which I started a year ago was a question FOR DISCUSSION - and I repeat for the tenth time.!

WHY CANNOT WE HAVE SMOKING PUBS AND NON-SMOKING PUBS??

That is the point and that is my very sensible question (for discussion) WHICH I ASKED A YEAR AGO AND NONE OF THE ARMY OF THE SELF RIGHTEOUS HEALTH MAFIA HAVE YET BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER.

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 725 - posted by patsy, Mar 7, 2007

merak,

So pleased to see that you have seen sense at last.;)

Lets start lobbying and campaigning to make cigerettes totaly illegal, you know it makes sense! <smiley>

posted by merak
It's such a danger. It should be outlawed here and now.

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 726 - posted by merak, Mar 8, 2007

merak,

So pleased to see that you have seen sense at last.

Quoted from this message



Lol, cheeky! <biggrin>
Complain about a message      

Message 727 - posted by U5848678, Mar 8, 2007

.....and the funniest thing is, they're only smoking cos they're hooked - period.

What pleasure puffing a load of smoke around and in you, those lovely stinks and brown fingers and teeth - gimme more ooooh yesss.
Complain about a message      

Message 728 - posted by Tettie-Hat, Mar 8, 2007


The whole point of the thread which I started a year ago was a question FOR DISCUSSION - and I repeat for the tenth time.!

WHY CANNOT WE HAVE SMOKING PUBS AND NON-SMOKING PUBS??

That is the point and that is my very sensible question (for discussion) WHICH I ASKED A YEAR AGO AND NONE OF THE ARMY OF THE SELF RIGHTEOUS HEALTH MAFIA HAVE YET BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER.


Quoted from this message



Malwood

There is no logical explanation for making this Act as inflexible as the Government have.

Neither the Government, nor those who embrace the legislation in its entirety, can provide full and justifiable reasons for a blanket ban. The only generalised answer's provided are;

'Its bad for your health' (But then, everyone knows that already!)

Or,

'A partial ban is unworkable’ (unspecified<erm>). How can Government possibly conclude that, without having first put theory into practise?

What justification could there possibly be for:

1. Not allowing segregation - either by venue as John Reid proposed, or by designated smoking rooms?
2. Not allowing a farmer sitting on his tractor in the middle of a 50-acre field - on his own - the right to smoke? How does that effect anyone else’s health?
3. Not allowing a person to smoke in their private vehicle if that person are giving a work college a lift, even if they both smoke?
(Totally unworkable, as it would be impossible to police!)
4. The House Of Commons bars being exempt - despite staff having to work there? Or doesn't their health count?

If health is really the 'main' reason for this legislation
WHY HAVE THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS NOT BEEN MADE ILLEGAL?
The smoker's health must be as important to the Government as the non-smokers health, surly?

And finally...

I wonder if the Government have considered how many working man-hours will be lost due to smoking staff nipping outside/off-premises for a fag? And will smoking people seeking employment in businesses where smoking is generally acceptable on the premises at the present time, be put at a disadvantage because of this legislation? If so, will the laws which prohibit discrimination be actioned, or will discrimination not cover smokers rights to equality?

The legislation as it currently stands, is simply too biased towards one section of the community.
Complain about a message      

Message 729 - posted by U5848678, Mar 8, 2007

The gov are doing their best to help you give up in a subjective way, no smoking on planes, then buses, now pubs - soon you'll be smoke, nicotine and tar free and a lot wealthier too - I hope then you actually thank them for the move. ;)
Complain about a message      

Message 730 - posted by malwood, Mar 8, 2007

malwood,
And if you are still waiting for an answer to your question after a whole year, then you should know by now there is no answer.
Why can't you just accept that smokers are in the minority and the ban is in the interests of the majority.;)

Quoted from this message



My very point Patsy

My suggestion is so logical, sensible and democratic that there IS no reasonable answer to it. It simply highlights this miserable government's continual intrusion and meddling in our private lives.

Unless, of course, you are saying that all minority groups or anything you don't agree with should be banned. :(
Complain about a message      

Message 731 - posted by banned user - L alt id 29, Mar 8, 2007

yodell mate

you do talk utter rubbish when adressing my problems you continually to display your puerile nature for all to see

do you get some kind of twisted kick out of this malarkey? if so rainhill should never have released you!
Complain about a message      

Message 732 - posted by patsy, Mar 8, 2007

tetratum,
Smokers obviously don't care that smoking is bad for them, and if the government did ban tobacco outright, the smokers would be making an even bigger fuss than they are now. <yikes>


posted by tetratum
f health is really the 'main' reason for this legislation
WHY HAVE THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS NOT BEEN MADE ILLEGAL?
The smoker's health must be as important to the Government as the non-smokers health, surly?


Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 733 - posted by U5848678, Mar 8, 2007

yodell mate

you do talk utter rubbish when adressing my problems you continually to display your puerile nature for all to see

do you get some kind of twisted kick out of this malarkey? if so rainhill should never have released you!

Quoted from this message



Is that you U boat - still in premod. I'll have words with Darren to keep you there or worse if you don't button it.
Complain about a message      

Message 734 - posted by Tettie-Hat, Mar 8, 2007

tetratum,
Smokers obviously don't care that smoking is bad for them, and if the government did ban tobacco outright, the smokers would be making an even bigger fuss than they are now. <yikes>


Quoted from this message



An even bigger fuss, yes - mainly due to suffering from withdrawal symptoms <laugh>

Imagine that, grumps on mass!<yikes> ;)

But seriously though - it does seem most odd to me that Westminster is exempt, despite staff being employed there. This little detail makes a farce out of the whole thing!

The Government should set by example!
Complain about a message      

Message 735 - posted by Ramslad, Mar 8, 2007



The Government should set by example!

Quoted from this message



What, the same way as they do about telling the truth, being faithful to their partners, accepting "gifts"...............<yikes><yikes>
Complain about a message      

Message 736 - posted by Tettie-Hat, Mar 8, 2007

Exactly, Rammy ;) <laugh>

And so, if its good enough for them, then its certainly good enough for everyone else - including allowing smoking in business premises at the discression of the proprietor! ;)
Complain about a message      

Message 737 - posted by yahtri, Mar 9, 2007

Yatri - once again you holier-than-thou non smokers have toatally avoided the question I asked over a year ago.

Quoted from this message



Any need for insults, matey? All it does is detract from any intellectual impact you may have made. Besides it is an unpleasant response to a pleasant post and debate. Just chill out.

I don't see any reason why there can't be non-smoking and smoking pubs myself, unless there were the usual smokers who do light up in non-smoking areas as is very much the case today, in hospitals and non-smoking rooms in pubs. As for the health issue, it is up to each of us how we live our lives so that is not an issue for me as long as I am free to watch a band, eat a meal, have a pint, stand at a bus stop etc without having to smoke myself. Surely this cannot be seen as an unacceptable expectation by even you, Malwood?

What you are saying is that 25% of the population who enjoy and cig and a pint can get stu**ed and lump it. That's democracy?(/unquote>

This made me laugh. Yes! Of course that is democracy! Using your stats, 25% of the population want to smoke in pubs, against the wishes of 75% of the population. A perfect example of democracy, surely?


Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 738 - posted by captnginger, Mar 20, 2007

I am sick of all you smokers with your excuses for indulging in your freedom of choice unhealthy habit a mate of mine once said his granny smoked 20 a day untill she was 85 my reply was if she didnt smoke she would be in the guiness book of records
Complain about a message      

Message 739 - posted by Jupiler , Mar 21, 2007

The dutch government is planning to ban the smoke ban in coffeeshops. You know, the ones where they sell very bad addictive soft drug thingies;-). They figured coffeeshops won't obey the ban. How smart my government is, eh!
Woeiiiiiii, go dutch, go dutch, go dutch! Yeahhhhhhhhhh
Complain about a message      

Message 740 - posted by Tettie-Hat, Mar 21, 2007

Cigarettes: duty to rise by 11p

Wonder how much of an insentive that is to encourage people to quit?

Duty on spirits is frozen

Wonder if that is the MP's favourite tipple at the bar? <laugh>
Complain about a message      
First | < Previous 31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40    Next > | Last

This discussion is tagged with:
- Bradford&W Yorks
- smoking
- law
- pubs

getting involved How to reply to messagespopup icon
complain  Alert us about a messagepopup icon
online safety Are you being safe online?popup icon

Messages  721 - 740 of 1019

 


About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy