egafd.com

Lol,

You cannot really expect most smokers to agree to these new laws. Since they've been allowed to smoke around others freely -for years- then they've took it for granted that they have the right to poison others, or at the very least, spoil other peoples socializing time.

It's just ignorance to tell me to go into a restaurant. (Though you can smoke in lots of restaurants too remember).

I'll lay out the differences as I see it...

If a non-smoker wants to socialize without being blasted with other peoples smoke, 'where do we go?' Smokers have places to smoke in, but for the most part, non-smokers do not. If non-smokers complain, we're whinging? Oh, that's fair !doh!

Another important fact, and something most seem to miss...Smokers are 'not' being denied access to anywhere, they're just being asked to refrain from smoking for the few hours they are around other human beings. Smoking kills after all.

As for the lame 'but drunk drivers kill more people than passive smoking per year' argument......well, I agree, it probably does. You forget though that drunk drivers are legally refrained from doing so for that very reason!

If smokers can slowly push harmful substances down non-smokers lungs over years & years, which may cause health problems further down the line, with a risk of death, then surely drunks should be allowed to drive? It's there selfish right to put people in danger if they hold a licence right?

How can smokers say drunks shouldn't drive because of the dangers, while ignoring the dangers they pass to others in public places like bars, clubs, restaurants & caf?s?

Drunk driving 'and' smoking kills, and given the choice over death from being run over, or death from years of lung cancer, I'd pick being run over by a drunk every time. Any smoker who thinks it's their right to let others inhale their smoke is plain selfish. There's no other way about it.

A smoker refrained from smoking is just delaying a habit for a few hours. A non-smokers being made to stop at home at the weekend because he/she has nowhere to go without being poisoned is forced into a 'fucked either way' situation.

A drunk driver gets sentenced, as well as living with what they have done. Smokers never get to find out how many people they've helped kill over the years. They have no faces and grieving children pointing the finger at them because it's a collective thing. They can then feel secure that it wasn't 'their cigarette' that did the damage. They're free of the guilt a drunk driver has forced upon them.

I see no difference between killing someone instantly in a car, or contributing to other peoples death from smoking around them. They both kill in there own way. The only difference is the legality.

Yours (whingingly),

Sam

Good man Biffo, an reasoned intelligent reply, it,s all about choice, I fucking hate it when I,m in the pub with adults, and some whining son of a bitch demands a bottle warmer for the baby, but I dont moan..live and let live.

If its about choice, then you will be able to go to the pub and not smoke or stay at home and smoke. Similar to the 'choice' I have now of going to the pub and returning stinking of smoke with sore eyes and throat etc. or not going out at all.
The arguement about bans extending to drinking next, dont wash. It is already illegal to use alcohol in a way that is detrimental to the health of those around you. Attacking fellow drinkers in the pub or in the street, or driving under the influence are all 'banned'. What is going to happen in july is not a ban on smoking. It will not stop you indulging in the privacy of your home, or in the street etc, but where your habit affects the health and comfort of others in an enclosed space, it will not be allowed.
And be honest, when was the last time you were in the pub and 'some whining son of a bitch demands a bottle warmer for the baby'.

Eggs-fucking-zactly Liz. Since when did pubs become creches. Since Mr and Mrs Daddy and Mommy decide that it should be their right to take little Wayne and Waynetta into the pub to annoy the shit out of the adults in there who had come out to get away from all that.
The other replies to this thread can't see the threat to their future freedoms that this ban heralds. The whole thing has been a state fit up pandering to a populist, vocal stridency that is becoming all too familiar in this country. They've recruited 'Smoking CEssation Officers' in local councils by the thousands, at a cost to us of fucking millions - why no 'Drink- driving Cessation Officers' to stop the piss-heads getting into their cars and killing people? Coz they don't fucking care about that, but just watch the zeal with which these anti-smokers enforce the ban - old men who have smoked all their lives (who really, of course should be dead), turfed out of their locals and made to stand on the street for a fag - make the non-smokers stand outside the pub for 10 minutes every hour and let them freeze their bollocks off.
And as for their clothes smelling - then WASH the fuckers, and if you have a sore throat suck a fucking Strepsil.

Smoking's a mug's game.
End of debate.

[quote]make the non-smokers stand outside the pub for 10 minutes every hour and let them freeze their bollocks off.
And as for their clothes smelling - then WASH the fuckers, and if you have a sore throat suck a fucking Strepsil.[/quote]

Yeah cool. Smokers have the habit, but non-smokers step outside? In that sense, everyone who doesn't drink and drive have to stop in their houses at weekends, just so the drunk drivers can use the streets without pedestrians to worry about?

Thoughtless.

Biffalo wrote:
why no 'Drink- driving Cessation Officers' to stop the piss-heads getting into their cars and killing people?

They are called police officers with breathalizers.

"If its about choice, then you will be able to go to the pub and not smoke or stay at home and smoke."


I dont smoke.

"when was the last time you were in the pub and 'some whining son of a bitch demands a bottle warmer for the baby'.

Yesterday, and she had the front to take it back cos it wasn,t warm enough, dont know why she just didn,t get her paps out.

I,m laughing ma ass off biff, a man after me own heart, I genuinly do feel sorry for some of the old boys, and girls, who dont have a fucking clue whats going to hit them, they have done no cunt any harm all thier lives, and sustained the pubs livelyhood, and now they can fuck off outside if - god forbid they decide they would like a smoke. next we will have pies that have to be wrapped in armourlite and put through a gieger counter before you can eat them to comply with EU regs, fucking lardy wanky tossers.
the best soloution is to simply ban all non smokers from real pubs, and give them sterile creche's with non tamper proof bottles of Merlot. Why! I remember when I had rickett's and I was rolled around in boiling hot tar for a week, soon cured me, now days you would probably get a prescription from some young wanky GP young enough to be your grandson.

I say ban smoking altogether since we know it to be so damn harmful. Those that complain can be made to live in concentration camps or shot and we can then turn our focus on alcohol and the banning of that substance.

We can then deem freedom to be too risky and ban that too and shoot anyone that objects.

We really do not live in a democratic society; its communism wrapped up in a fluffy blanket