Questions, Questions  permalink

Fag fascists.

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 351 - 393 of 393
  • Message 351

    , in reply to message 350.

    Posted by patsy (U2080414) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    Type History,

    Smoking hasn't yet been banned.

    <quote>Hence we should ban alcohol, since there are proven links between it and domestic violence, and 40% of road accidents involve alcohol.

    Report message1

  • Message 352

    , in reply to message 348.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    In reply to patsy in message 348

    So you agree with the idea behind this legislation, and it's of course fine to agree with it; this is a different matter than using the fact that it has been set as law as a principled counter-argument against another person's arguments. In other words, "your arguments for choice are wrong because I disagree with them" is different than "your arguments for choice are wrong because there is a current law against what you are arguing for".

    Report message2

  • Message 353

    , in reply to message 351.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    In reply to patsy in message 351 Smoking hasn't yet been banned.  So one can consent to smoke but not be in the presence of other smokers in a private room that no-one has to enter?

    I think Type History's point is that you want to ban group smoking in order to protect adults who are unable to make informed choices, from the effects of other people's smoke. So why not seek to protect people from the effects of other people's drinking.

    Report message3

  • Message 354

    , in reply to message 352.

    Posted by OoooohAaaaaah (U11878332) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    This is my first whole day without a cigarette. smiley - sadface

    Report message4

  • Message 355

    , in reply to message 352.

    Posted by patsy (U2080414) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    Q of S,

    In the interest of the health of the majority, what is there to argue about?

    <quote>In other words, "your arguments for choice are wrong because I disagree with them" is different than "your arguments for choice are wrong because there is a current law against what you are arguing for".

    Report message5

  • Message 356

    , in reply to message 353.

    Posted by patsy (U2080414) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    Q of S,
    I think you will find that is already happening.

    <quote>So why not seek to protect people from the effects of other people's drinking.

    Report message6

  • Message 357

    , in reply to message 355.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    In reply to patsy in message 355

    Because the majority don't have to use smoking and drinking services. They can use drinking services, people that want to smoke and drink can do so in another service. If I want to be protected from the risks associated with rockclimbing or being a stuntperson or firefighter or drinking alcohol or junk food in a McDonald's, I will choose not to do these things.

    Report message7

  • Message 358

    , in reply to message 356.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    In reply to patsy in message 356

    Banning alcohol would be simpler. No choice, no compromise, no balance.

    Report message8

  • Message 359

    , in reply to message 358.

    Posted by patsy (U2080414) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    Q of S,

    And do you advocate the same for tobacco?

    <quote>Banning alcohol would be simpler. No choice, no compromise, no balance.

    Report message9

  • Message 360

    , in reply to message 340.

    Posted by Ken More (U1319701) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    OoooohAaaaaah msg 340

    The science of sex!!??
    Are you hitting on me?
    No matter, Mrs More says I'm not available.
    Nice portrait.
    smiley - winkeye

    Report message10

  • Message 361

    , in reply to message 360.

    Posted by OoooohAaaaaah (U11878332) on Sunday, 8th June 2008

    In your dreams. Stop pretending there is a Mrs More. No one would have anything to do with a person with your views; let alone marry them!smiley - yikes

    Report message11

  • Message 362

    , in reply to message 361.

    Posted by Privateofcourse (U5705252) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    'Tis fairly obvious that this debate will rage on, and it is improbable that a solution will ever be forthcoming. But I will nonetheless stick my ore in once more:

    As previously mentioned, I'm an ex smoker. But, rather than being sympathetic to smokers, I am unashamedly and openly intolerant of smokers who contaminate my environment with their cigarette smoke, and I am especially intolerant of those that show absolutely no consideration for non smokers...which is the majority of smokers IME. Just visit any supermarket or 'office complex' in the land and you'll find the 'smokers' club' congregated outside the entrances blowing their smoke over anyone that walks in or comes out. It really is disgusting, and entirely selfish.

    Smokers' reasoning is markedly impaired; as a group their primary objective is to support their addiction, not to overcome it. Addiction is like that unfortunately! To this end addicts will argue for their rights to be upheld, and also argue that others should tolerate and accept the consequences of their addictions, and their rights to be addicted, and of course those that reasonably object to this nonsense will undoubtedly be branded as intolerant bigots, akin to Hitler...as has been done here. Tiresome to say the least!

    In 'discussions' like this one, about the abominable intolerance of non smokers, it is usual to encounter a lot of self justificatory claptrap from smokers who have no intention of sparing others from the effects of their selfish habit. Non smokers have been and are generally still far too tolerant of smokers and their rancid and poisonous smoke; I know because I wish that others had told me to take my obnoxious habit elsewhere instead of just putting up with it. Consequently, many passive smokers have succumbed to cancer, and through no faults of their own. Disgraceful, and unacceptable.

    The health evidence against smoking is incontrovertible:

    Smoking is additive: tobacco contains nicotine; nicotine is a drug.
    Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world.
    Smoking accounts for one in four UK cancer deaths.
    Smoking kills five times more people than road accidents, overdoses, murder, suicide and HIV all put together.

    Smokers can (and do) pointlessly argue about the details, and challenge statistics, but the fact remains that smoking has no redeeming qualities: it kills people unnecessarily. And seemingly trivial in comparison, modern tobaccos are particularly rancid and unpleasant to all but the smoker.

    Smoking cannot ever be tolerated again as an acceptable social habit. It just isn't sociable any longer. Most of the inhabitants of our society have had the scales removed from their eyes on this one: people have woken up and heard the truth that innocent people have knowingly been poisoned for profit for decades. And, after this awakening, I for one am not going to simply comply when an addict screams about having their right to smoke upheld. Not a chance. Now that I have woken up I want my air to remain as poison free as possible, and I also don't want to walk about stinking of old ashtrays anymore either.

    My home is a non smoking home. I no longer place myself in environments where I have to endure smoke. I will openly object and challenge others that smoke near to me...as is MY right. I agree that is intolerant. But intolerance isn't always a bad thing!

    Report message12

  • Message 363

    , in reply to message 362.

    Posted by lateralthinking1 (U10007871) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    So you are able to avoid it. Lucky you but that is because any impacts on human health are localised to the places where smoking takes place. As a smoker, I have no ability personally to manage so absolutely others' more damaging behaviour.

    I don't drive a car. I don't fly. I don't have any offspring. Those who do any of these things -and most do all three - have no moral justification in their arguments.

    They are putting global pressures on the environment and hence directly on others' health probably millions of times greater in the longer-term than anyone who lights up.

    Tolerance can only be sustained if it is consistent and I have to say that mine has run out. My first choice is a tolerant society across the board. My second - and the only practically applicable one following this ban - is a draconian regime on health grounds that is fair because it is equal.

    So, I now look forward to the day when those freedoms - seen by many as benign - are curtailed for rather more logical reasons of health.

    Report message13

  • Message 364

    , in reply to message 361.

    Posted by Ken More (U1319701) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    In your dreams. Stop pretending there is a Mrs More. No one would have anything to do with a person with your views; let alone marry them! 

    My views? Apart from the one where I touched a raw nerve (obviously not the burned out olfactory one) by drawing attention to how peculiarly 'fragrant' you smokers are, which views did you have in mind?

    The very real, refreshingly clean and sweet smelling Mrs More thinks my attitude toward smoking is far too liberal.

    Congratulations in not having a cigarette yesterday; that'll be the first fiver saved! I hope you manage the same today....and every tomorrow until you regain control of you own life. smiley - ok

    Report message14

  • Message 365

    , in reply to message 363.

    Posted by RCWhiting (U11440738) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    (362) Private
    Nice to see a fair, balanced summary of the whole thread.

    Report message15

  • Message 366

    , in reply to message 365.

    Posted by Stout-Cortez (U3645932) on Monday, 9th June 2008

    How many of you remember, when we were youngsters,we would buy a bag of cinnamon sticks from the herbalist and smoke them behind the bush at the bottom of the garden?

    The smell was quite delightful and I even remember my grandma chirruping, "Ooh, what's that lovely smell?"

    I might give it another shot.

    Report message16

  • Message 367

    , in reply to message 348.

    Posted by Serangoon (U6740155) on Sunday, 14th September 2008

    That woman who was pushed off a train station platform when she accosted a couple of 'open air' smokers...I don't suppose she contributes to this message board does she?

    Report message17

  • Message 368

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by Cucumber (U2440869) on Sunday, 14th September 2008

    In reply to Serangoon in message 367

    Even if she does, would she be posting at present with a broken wrist.

    Report message18

  • Message 369

    , in reply to message 368.

    Posted by Norma (U2334558) on Sunday, 14th September 2008

    Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:46 GMT, in reply to Quantum of Solace in message 368

    It was 1st June 2000 when I stopped smoking, this week I opened a large gardening book, it still smells. Standing open in front of the french windows, improving.

    Report message19

  • Message 370

    , in reply to message 369.

    Posted by JoSammy (U10803533) on Sunday, 14th September 2008

    msg 363 "no moral justification" in having offspring!! WHAT!! It is a primal instinct to continue the human race. There's not much use if nobody had no offspring, after all.

    ps Why do smokers also irritatingly always carefully hold their cigarettes away from their little group - often behind their back - so as not to "offend" them with the stench? (with the obvious effect that it contaminates nearby strangers instead - and often children, whose little heads are around hand level) smiley - sadface

    Report message20

  • Message 371

    , in reply to message 370.

    Posted by JoSammy (U10803533) on Sunday, 14th September 2008

    hmmm ... how about .. not much use if NOBODY had ANY offspring .... smiley - erm

    Report message21

  • Message 372

    , in reply to message 370.

    Posted by masmitfutility (U10580595) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    Speaking as a smoker, I always push objectors off railway platforms, even if I have to drag them to the nearest station to do so. It's a simple act of kindness.

    I also always hold my cigarette behind my back in order to prevent gardening books acquiring a tobacco odour (which would be an unforgiveable waste of expensive aromatic material), a habit which provides the additional benefit of sharing with small children the valuable 'sidestream' smoke, which, as any fule kno, is far more powerful than the weak 'direct' smoke that I selflessly limit myself to.

    I also happen to know that all 1.2 billion of my fellow smokers around the world do exactly the same, all the time.

    Report message22

  • Message 373

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by loop22 (U7386676) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    The best comeback to a smoke complainant is to inform them your merely attempting to mask the vile odour of their perfume/aftershave, It helps if you pull a face as you tell them this

    Report message23

  • Message 374

    , in reply to message 373.

    Posted by jonjel (U7302507) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    I am an occasional smoker, though not ciggies.

    I was in a friend of a frinds garden a few weeks ago and asked very politely if he minded if I smoked.

    Back came the stock reply, 'do you mind if I cough!', although there was no way my smoke would even be smelt by him on a breeezy day with me a few yards away and downwind.

    Had it not been for a couple of friends there I would have been tempted to answer him with 'you cough if you like, I am leaving in any case'

    Report message24

  • Message 375

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Beth_Syn_Bod (U13319186) on Monday, 15th September 2008




    So a bit of common sense eventually.

     


    So it's common sense to extend the opportunity to indulge in an unpleasant, addictive and highly damaging activity, it it? Not what I would call sensilble.

    The good news is that the smoking ban legislation was carefully and deliberately worded so that in the future, once the current restrictions are accepted, the ban can be extended to all public spaces without the need for new legislation, just a minor amendment to the existing law.

    Now that's what I call common sense.

    Report message25

  • Message 376

    , in reply to message 375.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    That's what I call Fascism, Beth! smiley - smiley

    Report message26

  • Message 377

    , in reply to message 376.

    Posted by Beth_Syn_Bod (U13319186) on Monday, 15th September 2008




    That's what I call Fascism

     


    Maybe you wouldn't if you were a non-smoker or if you had seen a smoker from your close family die of cancer caused by smoking.

    There is simply nothing that justifies the continued access to this vile habit.

    Report message27

  • Message 378

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Raphater (U13307203) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    Even though I'm a heavy smoker (it's taken me eleven cigarettes to read from #1 to #374) I am in favour of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. I do, however, feel that it has been unfairly and too rigidly imposed. In the case of pubs and clubs I still believe that the choice should be given to their keepers to decide whether or not to operate a smoking/non establishment. Surely this would be the fairest solution?

    I've seen all the to-ing and fro-ing about people's choice of whether or not to work in a smoking environment, but let me see if this will serve to balance things a little:

    I worked for six years in the security industry as a guard, because it beat signing on and once you're in, you have the old "can't write his own name" stigma to overcome when you try and find a better job. At that time the EU Working Directive was coming into force, restricting people to 48 working hours per week. On entering the security industry I was asked to sign a waiver to allow them to employ me on-site over and above the EUWD limit. I had the choice of signing the waiver or seeking work elsewhere. I worked, on average, 56 hours per week. No hardship, although some of the customers' liaison people were a real PITA. There's always someone who wants to make a perceived lower-ranking person's life a misery isn't there? I remember that my colleagues and I at one site completely filled one such idiot's car with Flo-Pak and then shrink-wrapped it. Moral: Never annoy a security guard who has a forklift licence and then leave your sun-roof open.smiley - devil

    Anyway... The wages were comparable (at the time) to those paid to bar staff. Bar staff were limited in their working hours by the licensing laws; I could work over and above 48 hours every single week if I wanted to - and often did (voluntarily) work 60 hours a week because it meant extra income. Probably did my overall health no good at all but it was *my choice*.

    Today, in the part of town where I live there are two pubs - one an olde worlde type place, and the "plastic pub" across the road. Now: If the law was to say that both could have the choice of how to operate, one could offer a smoky atmosphere and the other could choose to stay smoke-free. People wanting to work in the pro-smoking bars could be asked to either sign a waiver stating that they would not hold the landlord responsible for any ill effects from so-called "passive smoking" or continue with their jobsearch elsewhere. Again - *their choice*. Protection of employers from lawsuits is something that has not, as far as I can recall, been covered in the discussion so far. Or the landlord of the pro-smoking establishment could choose to employ only smokers behind his bar. Disclaimers on the doors to warn non-smokers of the pro-smoking nature of the premises: Job done.

    This seems fair to me. It would have an immediate advantage in that there would suddenly be no more groups of smokers outside both of these pubs carrying on their conversations, which always increase in volume in direct proportion to the amount of alcohol fuelling them, and sometimes extend across the main road between the pubs who have rival football teams. The residents in houses immediately neighbouring both establishments would probably find their sleep cycles much improved as a result, although they'd have to go back to watching the football on telly.

    I strongly suspect that the situation would be that many of the non-smokers would go into the pro-smoking pub in order to continue socialising with their nicotine-abusing friends. That, however, would be entirely their own choice as the alternative would be available just across the road.

    There seems to be an undercurrent of fear among the NS community that all pubs would revert to being smoke-filled hell-holes. I don't believe it would happen. NS pubs are easier to keep clean; many landlords would, I believe, retain their NS status. The only way to test it, though, is to try it and until that happens we're going to continue to see acres of server space given over to verbal head-bashing sessions like this discussion has threatened to become on several occasions.

    Somewhere back in the earlier discussion, someone said that he/she can walk away from the smell of cigarette smoke but cannot escape from the toxins etc being pushed into the air by the person smoking the cigarette. None of us can walk away from the toxins being pushed into the air by industries, f@rting cows, volcanoes and countless motor vehicles. Should we ban these polluters too? Ridiculous. How does one go about banning a volcano? A big cork maybe...smiley - erm

    Someone else said: "Hence we should ban alcohol, since there are proven links between it and domestic violence, and 40% of road accidents involve alcohol." It has to be said that one HUNDRED per cent of road accidents involve motor vehicles. If we ban the motor vehicles, we will have no more road accidents then. How dumb would that be? We'd lose an awful lot of designated non-smoking areas if we didn't have business vehicles on the roads.

    Still another person notes that all the pubs' beer gardens have been taken over by smokers. Whether that person was a tobacco user or not I can't recall, but there has been only one cause or smokers' mass emigration to the beer gardens, hasn't there? There's an old saying about cake...

    Yet another person complains about the sight of groups of smokers gathering at factory gates making the premises look untidy. I agree. It gives an appalling impression to people visiting the employer's business, yet the place where I worked until last year still does exactly the same. Image obviously doesn't mean anything to these employers or they would designate specific areas within their grounds as smoking areas. Many employers enforce this rule because it compels the smoking employees to clock out in order to go and have a "legal" cigarette so the employers can keep tabs on skivers. I ask, where would be the difference in enclosing a specific on-site, out-of-sight area that employees had to clock INTO in order to gain access?

    Someone else mentioned HSW. Compelling employees to stand on often busy thoroughfares within industrial estates could endanger them. OK, so it is the employees' choice to either stand on those thoroughfares or forego their cigarette, but where I worked I could also choose to walk through the factory area in order to access a working tea dispenser when the one in my own work area failed. Within the factory there are safeguards in place to protect the worker from a dangerous environment; no such safeguards exist on the thoroughfare outside the gates, yet the employee is still "at work" because they only go outside during authorised breaks. Many use the relative peace and quiet away from open-plan offices to make return phone calls to suppliers and customers while they bring their stress levels down. I certainly used to but I'd have preferred to remain on-site, away from the noise of pan-techs rumbling to and fro.

    I've learned from a former colleague that the minor accident rate in the factory area has gone up since the imposition of the smoking ban. The question has to be asked: Is this because the operator is now not concentrating 100% on his work, but thinking about his next cigarette break? So much for HSW if it proved to be the case.

    What really bugs me about the term "enclosed public space" is that it now seems to be suffering from over-zealous interpretation (witness: the beer garden complaint above). Even my local town centre, with its open on three sides walkways, is now being deemed by its owners (a life insurance company) as an "enclosed" public space. When were businesses given the right to dictate how the law in this country must be interpreted and, more importantly, where will it stop?

    Check this out: The local housing authority has just let one of its apartments to my step-daughter and her husband. On the wall outside is the statutory notice which reads "It is forbidden to smoke anywhere in these premises except in your own home". Fine, there is a communal entrance. However, the tenancy agreement contains a clause which prohibits the tenants from even smoking within their rented apartments. That is a direct contradiction of what the legally placed notice says. The wording on the notice was formulated by the elected body (HMG) which imposed the original law. What gives the local HA the right to add its own contradictory extension to that law without that extension being permitted or ratified by the same elected government? What we now have is a two-tier society where tenants again, in spite of all the work that has been done to level the playing field, have fewer rights than private householders. What my SD and her husband also have is a front yard car-park littered with cigarette butts because the smokers next door and upstairs cannot be bothered to take them indoors to dispose of them and no suitable receptacles are provided outside. If the HA wishes (and is allowed) to impose their additional rule, then they should recognise that they have a responsibility to the local environment.

    We seem to have given in too much to the "tax it or ban it" mentality inspired and nurtured by The PC Brigade. I believe we would be better served by the improved/fairer *management* of what some see as freedoms and others see as social ills so that everyone can be treated as equals regardless of their vices. So, in the case of railway platforms, as asked by the OP, would it not make sense to segregate the space in a manner determined by the prevailing wind and placing the smokers in the section downwind of everyone else?

    This message has been brought to you with the additional assistance of Sixmore-Rollups, Luxembourg-based providers of reliable stress relief for people who object to the smell of chocolate.

    Report message28

  • Message 379

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by Beth_Syn_Bod (U13319186) on Monday, 15th September 2008




    That, however, would be entirely their own choice as the alternative would be available just across the road.


     


    Not for us Raph. We live in a small village in Wales with one pub.

    If that one permitted smoking we would have to drive 5 miles to the next (where the landlord has already been fined 3 times for encouraging smoking) so on another 5 miles to the next where this unsociable and stupid habit may or may not be permitted.


    Report message29

  • Message 380

    , in reply to message 379.

    Posted by Raphater (U13307203) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    Re: #379

    Another of those old sayings about not pleasing all of the people...etc applies.

    I don't know what the answer might be for small communities such as yours, Beth. Village vote, maybe? Or maybe a village interchange with a paid minibus service: Smokers travel to the pro-smoking landlord's prems; non-smokers from his village travel to your local.

    There's never going to be a perfect answer to the smoking/pubs debate, but I still reckon that the choice should be available, either directly by the pub-keepers or via a vote by the residents in a small community.

    Report message30

  • Message 381

    , in reply to message 380.

    Posted by Beth_Syn_Bod (U13319186) on Monday, 15th September 2008


    Raph

    There are many things that give me great pleasure (folk music, flatulence, whelks, etc) but I am mature enough to recognise that it would be unfair to inflict them on those around me, and that it would be unreasonable to do so if those pleasures were also harmful to others.

    No brainer really.

    Report message31

  • Message 382

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by Hugh_Mosby-Joaquin (U7370829) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    the toxins being pushed into the air by industries, f@rting cows, volcanoes and countless motor vehicles. Should we ban these polluters too?  
    Well, yes, if we could.
    But 'industries' have other marginal benefits over and above a factory chimney; they 'make things', not excluding cigarettes, I might add.
    Farting cows; none of which, I doubt, are kept as pets. They do have other uses.
    Countless motor vehicles, some of which carry doctors around, I suppose. A few are making pointless journeys; they ought to be banned..
    Volcanoes; alright, I cannot think of a use for them. Best ban hurricanes, too, as they kill loads of people.
    I do not smoke (used to) and have no argument with people smoking in pubs. But the justification, however tenuous, has to be rooted in some form of common sense.
    Compared to your above examples, smoking brings pleasure to one or two people, and kills lots more. Not much of an argument, really.

    Report message32

  • Message 383

    , in reply to message 382.

    Posted by masmitfutility (U10580595) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    smoking brings pleasure to one or two people, and kills lots more. 

    Around half a million people die in the uk each year. Apparently about 20% of these deaths are smoking related. Apparently around 22% of the population smoke.

    These figures come from national statistics online, and ASH, if you want to check them.

    Report message33

  • Message 384

    , in reply to message 383.

    Posted by JoSammy (U10803533) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    I still reckon that the choice should be available 

    but there is, Raph - like it or lump it smiley - winkeye

    Report message34

  • Message 385

    , in reply to message 383.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    These figures come from national statistics online, and ASH, if you want to check them.  

    Statistics from ASH are worth about as much as those quoted by Doctor Goebbels. They will gladly make up any statistics they need to make their points.

    Report message35

  • Message 386

    , in reply to message 385.

    Posted by masmitfutility (U10580595) on Monday, 15th September 2008

    I tend to agree, which is why I got the figure for smoking-related deaths from there. If even ASH can't massage the numbers higher, then there is a tiny chance that even the furious fag-bashers around here will accept them.

    Report message36

  • Message 387

    , in reply to message 386.

    Posted by Richard (U13065358) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    The leisure industry (especially pubs, clubs, casinos, bingo halls) is suffering from the smoking ban which is especially poignant as many of those same companies lobbied for it in the first place as they feared future court actions from their own employees for health related problems.

    They also fancied a commercial opportunity with the ban as they anticipated getting rid of the old blokes with their fags and drink and welcoming an influx of new young families eating and drinking al a continental etc and even apparently tooled up for it with new kitchens. But alas they did not appear and as the price of pub beer has gone through the roof and the government refuses any special help, the old blokes have also disappeared to the supermarket discounters.

    Report message37

  • Message 388

    , in reply to message 381.

    Posted by Justin (U13313405) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Beth_synbod.


    I think Folk music could be considered harmful to others!!

    We had some Moris dancers perform in Canterbury at the weekend...

    Not my cuppa really, but they were good and entertained the kids for long enough for me to have a pint, and a fag!

    Report message38

  • Message 389

    , in reply to message 387.

    Posted by loop22 (U7386676) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    zoomy2222, I've heard that pubs, clubs, casinos, bingo halls have had to pump in the smell of cigarettes to their premises as it is the perfect scent to mask the stench of stale beer and excrement that now pervades these establishments.

    I went into a pub the other day, thinking of having lunch, but the second I breathed through my nose, knew that this could be suicidal, given the smell.

    Report message39

  • Message 390

    , in reply to message 389.

    Posted by Justin (U13313405) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Interestingly, you can still have a smoking room in a hotel.
    Now, I know that you are not sharing the room with the general public, but I was surprised to find this is still possible.

    Smoke is able to permeate into other areas of the building/floor, no?

    Report message40

  • Message 391

    , in reply to message 390.

    Posted by Richard (U13065358) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    I wandered around a convalescent hotel in Porthcawl recently and was surprised to find a functioning smoking room. When I expressed amused congratulations to the extremely nice manager she explained that as it was a 'convalescent' hotel it was classed as a place of residence and could therefore allow smoking.

    Report message41

  • Message 392

    , in reply to message 389.

    Posted by Ken More (U1319701) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    I've heard that pubs, clubs, casinos, bingo halls have had to pump in the smell of cigarettes to their premises as it is the perfect scent to mask the stench of stale beer and excrement that now pervades these establishments.

    I went into a pub the other day, thinking of having lunch, but the second I breathed through my nose, knew that this could be suicidal, given the smell. 


    smiley - laugh smiley - laugh

    What you smelled was more likely to have been a considerate smoker who was carrying a bucket full of dogs' dirt in a vain attempt to tone down the scent of his addiction.

    Report message42

  • Message 393

    , in reply to message 390.

    Posted by masmitfutility (U10580595) on Tuesday, 16th September 2008

    Interestingly, you can still have a smoking room in a hotel. 

    This is because a hotel room is counted as a temporary residence, rather than a public place.

    Good hotels, for some time, have tended to have smoking and non-smoking floors, separating the smokers and non-smokers.

    Report message43

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.