egafd.com

You're right Tricky. The 'Ban this, Ban that' brigade can't see where this is going. We must not let this or any other Government use spurious argument to bring in banning orders They've already Hi-jacked the Green issue and will use that to hit us with a swathe of new taxes, and then the next step will be to ban our freedom to travel when and where we like. Plus there will be a cost to us because of the smoking ban - when the Government, Brewers and Publicans see their revenue falling then prices will rise - it's inevitable. But the 'New Puritans' can rejoice in their victory and all will be well in the world again.
And to all the non-smokers who object to the polluting atmosphere in pubs caused by smokers - Do you drive? Do you jump into one of the most polluting creations invented by man? Do you help pollute the air that I breathe, day in day out? Just wait and see what these bastards will do about that next - Motor Cars only for the rich, roads only for the rich, inadequate, underfunded, costly, unreliable public transport for the rest of us.
Thoughtless? Moi?

Long live the Lizard - the man who spoke some sense

You seem paranoid. Either that, or you're trying to excuse your point of view.

You talk of freedoms, yet seem to ignore non-smokers freedoms. Why do smokers think that non-smokers should accept being poisoned? What's so bad about going without a cigarette for a few hours?

Maybe a like lubing up my balls and jacking off every five minutes? Can't do it in public though, so where's my fucking freedom? Maybe I like having a 12" bowie knife and stroking it. Can't take it to the pub though, I have to wait till I get home, oh the cheek of it!. Even if I had these strange habits, they're not harming other people, whether done in public or not.

Like I said -but people arguing against skirt around it- if it's legal to smoke around others, why isn't it legal to drink and drive around others? It's only a question after all. Isn't it discriminatory, saying smokers can harm others but drunks cannot?

The question again,

"If smokers are permitted to harm the health of others, why are drink drivers denied this?"

Both kill, or damage innocent peoples health, so what's the difference?

My paranoia knows no bounds..especially where this bastard government is..but to answer your perfectly stupid question with another

'Why is it not acceptable for smokers to 'pollute' your environment when drivers can pollute mine'?

I wish you no success in your campaign to have drunken driving legalised.

Smoking is a personal habit that would not affect productivity if banned from certain public places. Driving and industry are essential to the productivity of individuals and the nation. Also scientists and technology all over the world are trying to produce cleaner emissions. You could say that banning driving and industry could be detrimental to a whole nation, while a ban on smoking is merely a hindrance for the few hours they are out socializing. (btw wasn't leaded petrol banned in 1999 on similar principles?)

As for my campaign of legalizing drink driving.....!doh!

I was using it to show smokers that there's isn't much difference in the morals of both. I never said I wanted drink driving legalised. I'm just using it to show that the morals and the possible consequences aren't much different, and thus the laws are actually discriminatory.

So there we have it biffalo, I politely answered your 'stupid' question but you -again- skirted mine with a question of your own. Are you going to answer it or not?

How you calling a Big Fucking Rant??
As Michael Winner would say:
"Calm Down Dear it's only a Ciggie"

To be honest Lizard mostly agree with what you say I mean if they are so bad for everybody's health why don't they just go the whole hog and ban them instead of this peter pansieing around trying to please all the fucking morale do-gooders ... oh that's right they make several billion pound a year off Tobacco duty, so the thought of non-smokers subsidising the smokers it utter Bollocks.
I would much rather see them tackle alcholol related problems first and foremost instead of going for the easy option of cigarettes, surely that causes a LOT more grief than cigarettes - if you get addicted to cigarettes well tough luck, but get a fondess for the old amber nectar and where does that leave you.

I must also say that the idea of bringing some of these tosspots from the pubs into nearby entries and pavements aint fucking on as it will only lead to confrontation and a general feeling of unease for the majority of the tax-paying public.

I'm getting bored with this one, but here's something to ponder. When the ban on smoking in enclosed public and work places, will a porn set be included, whether its a studio or house? Presumably that would mean no smoking so as to ensure a safe working environment for all involved. Not before time on some sets I've been on. If I want a hazy smoke effect in the shot I'll use a smoke machine or mist spray. In the more legit world, it is already smoke free on set or enclosed location.

oops sorry that should read:
"WHO you calling a Big Fucking Rant" but you catch my drift Lizard.

Yep it will cover everybody and everything Andy, up here in Scotland if your job involves driving your company vehicle you are not allowed to light up, also if you shoot a movie or drama in Scotland you cannot have anybody smoking on set whether the shot calls for it or not ... you are still breaking the law. No doubt the MP's might have a different rule to us though when they finally get round to parking their fat arses on the benches of Parliament.

No...I'm going for a Tab