Smoking ban may extend further (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Email us your story, call 01793 501806 or text 80360, starting your message with 'SWINDON
NEWS'
Smoking ban may extend further
7:00am Thursday 4th February 2010 in
SMOKERS in Swindon could soon find themselves pushed further out in the cold when they want to light up.
The Government is threatening to extend the cigarette ban outdoors to include entrances to workplaces, bus shelters and even pub beer gardens.
Andy Burnham, the health secretary, is to review the law to see if it should be bolstered to include areas where smokers have gathered since the 2007 ban.
An extension of the ban, which currently covers enclosed spaces, to include busy but open-air areas such as office doorways and pub gardens would also reduce passive smoking, Department of Health (DoH) officials believe.
However, Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest, said further restrictions would “further erode our ability to choose how we wish to live our lives”.
The number of smokers has fallen by a quarter in the past decade, but an estimated 200,000 young people start smoking every year.
Figures from the NHS Information centre show that almost 2,000 people in Wiltshire quit the habit with help from local health services over a sxith-month period.
Mr Burnham said: “Most smokers start before they are 18, so we have to discourage children and young people from ever starting.
“Now that we’ve banned advertising and will soon see an end to attractive displays in shops, the only remaining method of advertising tobacco is the packaging. So we will carefully consider whether there is evidence for making tobacco companies use plain packets.
“We will always help people to quit, and smokers should never stop trying. That’s the beauty of the NHS – it’s there to help everyone.
“One day, in the not too distant future, we’ll look back and find it hard to remember why anyone ever smoked in the first place.”
His review, which will begin in July, will look at public spaces outside buildings.
In addition to the entrances to office blocks, he will examine the effects of smoking areas outside pubs, bars and nightclubs as well as bus shelters.
Mr Clark, of Forest, said the Government had already introduced “some of the most Draconian anti-smoking laws in the world”, adding: “In an allegedly free society, this is nothing to be proud of.”
He said: “The current smoking ban, which has had a devastating impact on community pubs and clubs, is out of all proportion to the harm allegedly caused by second-hand smoke. Further restrictions will only accelerate that trend.”
More than 80,000 deaths are attributed to smoking ever year, costing the NHS £2.7 billion a year, according to the Department of Health
Comments(63)
Casual Observer
says...
7:47am Thu 4 Feb 10
http://www.smokefree
action.org.uk/index.
html
Thanks again for that Bob, though I still don't quite understand why, when it just about wipes the floor with any arguments you had. I can only assume you were using the RR method at the time.
Pseudo
says...
7:57am Thu 4 Feb 10
Wurzellly wrote:So you are allowed your opinion but no one else is if they disagree with you?
Wonderful news. What a fantastic idea. Why should decent clean human beings be subjected to the filthy pollution from smokers. Smokers are the single most inconsiderate breed of people. There is nothing worse than having to walk through a fog of smoke at a pub doorway or sitting next to a moron in a beer garden smoking. Bring it on is what I say. . I'll now sit back and wait for the pro-smoking brigade to start their predictable but irrelevant comparisons to car exhaust fumes and pollution from factories. Find some straws boys and clutch 'em!
.
Why should you be allowed to dictate to 1/3 of the population just because you disagree with their actions?
.
Technology exisits to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exist but the doesn't suit your agenda does it?
Concerned of Wiltshire
says...
8:17am Thu 4 Feb 10
Pseudo wrote:Pseudo,
Wurzellly wrote:So you are allowed your opinion but no one else is if they disagree with you?
Wonderful news. What a fantastic idea. Why should decent clean human beings be subjected to the filthy pollution from smokers. Smokers are the single most inconsiderate breed of people. There is nothing worse than having to walk through a fog of smoke at a pub doorway or sitting next to a moron in a beer garden smoking. Bring it on is what I say. . I'll now sit back and wait for the pro-smoking brigade to start their predictable but irrelevant comparisons to car exhaust fumes and pollution from factories. Find some straws boys and clutch 'em!
.
Why should you be allowed to dictate to 1/3 of the population just because you disagree with their actions?
.
Technology exisits to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exist but the doesn't suit your agenda does it?
If the minority of the population smoking really is as much as one third it's still a minority. So you lose.
Understand it's a disgusting habit and stop it - like I did.
One more thing - if there were technology available to reduce the carcinogenic fog in Swindon town centre, who would pay for it? I bet you think the tax payer should?
Pseudo
says...
8:21am Thu 4 Feb 10
Concerned of Wiltshire wrote:So the minorities in your world don't matter?
Pseudo wrote:Pseudo, If the minority of the population smoking really is as much as one third it's still a minority. So you lose. Understand it's a disgusting habit and stop it - like I did. One more thing - if there were technology available to reduce the carcinogenic fog in Swindon town centre, who would pay for it? I bet you think the tax payer should?Wurzellly wrote: Wonderful news. What a fantastic idea. Why should decent clean human beings be subjected to the filthy pollution from smokers. Smokers are the single most inconsiderate breed of people. There is nothing worse than having to walk through a fog of smoke at a pub doorway or sitting next to a moron in a beer garden smoking. Bring it on is what I say. . I'll now sit back and wait for the pro-smoking brigade to start their predictable but irrelevant comparisons to car exhaust fumes and pollution from factories. Find some straws boys and clutch 'em!So you are allowed your opinion but no one else is if they disagree with you? . Why should you be allowed to dictate to 1/3 of the population just because you disagree with their actions? . Technology exisits to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exist but the doesn't suit your agenda does it?
.
I don't smoke
.
The pubs would (gladly?) pay for their own air cleaning systems to encourage the customers back that you have banished outside whilst the pub remains empty inside
politicrat
says...
8:21am Thu 4 Feb 10
Drinking alcohol is good ?!?
where is the logic?
Trend
says...
8:23am Thu 4 Feb 10
RF1
says...
8:29am Thu 4 Feb 10
I am sick and tired of walking thought town and getting a face full of billowing smoke in my face from some pedestrian puffer.
And any passing smokers can forget about lecturing on the negligable health risk - it's offensive to me to have your disgusting habit inflicted on me in any shape or form - so bog off.
silvergran
says...
8:43am Thu 4 Feb 10
Where people stand outside offices and shop doorways in town, it gives a very bad impression of that business to have a group of smokers wasting time having a ciggie. When I was working the smokers seemed to get lots of extra time out and the non smokers were still at their desks working hard - not at all fair!
nobody
says...
9:24am Thu 4 Feb 10
Home Boy
says...
9:41am Thu 4 Feb 10
Pseudo
says...
9:50am Thu 4 Feb 10
Home Boy wrote:Why not allow landlords to apply for a licence to allow smoking?
Given that there is already a ban in place to prevent smoking in the workplace (presumably to prevent smoke entering the workplace), it would appear fairly logical that this should include smoking outside entrances, doorways, windows, etc. The beer garden idea is an interesting one. It seems a tad harsh to ban smoking in beer gardens full stop. Why not require landlords to include non-smoking areas within the beer garden instead?
.
A clear poster on the pub door, smoking or non-smoking would let you know whether to enter or not.
.
Its called freedom of choice
.
Surely Governments and Councils are there to protect and serve, not control every aspect of our lives?
politicrat
says...
10:02am Thu 4 Feb 10
Pseudo wrote:I wouldnt be so sure of that if I were you.
Home Boy wrote: Given that there is already a ban in place to prevent smoking in the workplace (presumably to prevent smoke entering the workplace), it would appear fairly logical that this should include smoking outside entrances, doorways, windows, etc. The beer garden idea is an interesting one. It seems a tad harsh to ban smoking in beer gardens full stop. Why not require landlords to include non-smoking areas within the beer garden instead?Why not allow landlords to apply for a licence to allow smoking? . A clear poster on the pub door, smoking or non-smoking would let you know whether to enter or not. . Its called freedom of choice . Surely Governments and Councils are there to protect and serve, not control every aspect of our lives?
moonie
says...
10:15am Thu 4 Feb 10
Concerned of Wiltshire
says...
10:18am Thu 4 Feb 10
Which seems an odd question. Is your argument that any type of minority instantly deserves to have what ever it wants purely because it is a minority? If not, what are you trying to say?
Pseudo
says...
10:28am Thu 4 Feb 10
Concerned of Wiltshire wrote:We are usually a tolerant nation and make allowances and have equal rights for minorities. The excepetion being that smokers are being persecuted.
Pseudo said; 'So the minorities in your world don't matter?'. Which seems an odd question. Is your argument that any type of minority instantly deserves to have what ever it wants purely because it is a minority? If not, what are you trying to say?
Bobfm
says...
10:33am Thu 4 Feb 10
That aside, Trend, there is a magical barrier, it's called a air curtain and was used together with state of the art technology for years in many places, like the Concord lounge at Heathrow.
There are also negative air pressure doors, used to provide clean rooms in both operating theatres and drug manufacturing plants to name just a couple.
But of course rabid anti smokers don't want fair solutions do they.
They wanted indoor bans, they got them now they want out door bans. What next bans in peoples homes just in case a Rabid anti smoker visits.
I tell you what ban tobacco all together, ah can't do that the Pharmaceutical Industry would lose billions from smoking cessation products that don't work.
Now the facts:
2006/7 Pre Ban Smoking rate 21%. Cost of implementation and smoking cessation £2 billion.
2007/2009 smoking rate 21%. Hows that for expensive failure.
the one from sevenhampton
says...
10:39am Thu 4 Feb 10
some very happy people Then Ban Drinking which is the way this country is going again very happy people right so far Ban drugs very good idea so out of all that lot who is left,
Who does not drink ??
Who does not smoke
Who does not do drugs
so where does it stop .
Do you people who Moan about smoking understand how much REVENUE is collected on the back of these Filthy Smokers they pay far more tax than you do so we stop it all then the Goverment have to find Billions every year to bridge the gap so those that dont smoke pay more tax those that dont drink pay more tax this goverment is a bunch of Hipercrites thay want to stop smoking so thay are seen to be doing somthing but they dont want to lost the tax they put on fag's Cake and eat it come's to Mind.and all this about Binge drinking whay should good living people who dot drink very often have to pay more for drink becaus a few like to go and rip up swindon and every other town on a friday and saterday so all you STOP people ask your self unless you come into contact with someone who smokes doe it really hurt you as my WIFE pointed out we will still have Cancer if every body stoped smoking and next time you buy your bottle of plonk to go with a sunday din din's and it costs over £8 you were the people who wanted to stop all the drunk's so no smoking no drinking some one ask them selves how much extra tax will every body pay as i am not looking forward to the day that happens.
moonraker
says...
10:46am Thu 4 Feb 10
If Bob wants to have a 'smoking' pub then he should be free to do so. However if I wish to push my grandchildren in a pushchair along Regent Street then I can see no good reason why they subjective to foul smelling carcinogenic smoke. Ban smoking in public.
Concerned of Wiltshire
says...
10:48am Thu 4 Feb 10
the one from sevenhampton wrote:Here is a full stop ' . ' and here is a space which can be deployed to create paragraphs ' ' . Please accept them with my compliments and use freely. :-)
I just had to right ban smoking ok
some very happy people Then Ban Drinking which is the way this country is going again very happy people right so far Ban drugs very good idea so out of all that lot who is left,
Who does not drink ??
Who does not smoke
Who does not do drugs
so where does it stop .
Do you people who Moan about smoking understand how much REVENUE is collected on the back of these Filthy Smokers they pay far more tax than you do so we stop it all then the Goverment have to find Billions every year to bridge the gap so those that dont smoke pay more tax those that dont drink pay more tax this goverment is a bunch of Hipercrites thay want to stop smoking so thay are seen to be doing somthing but they dont want to lost the tax they put on fag's Cake and eat it come's to Mind.and all this about Binge drinking whay should good living people who dot drink very often have to pay more for drink becaus a few like to go and rip up swindon and every other town on a friday and saterday so all you STOP people ask your self unless you come into contact with someone who smokes doe it really hurt you as my WIFE pointed out we will still have Cancer if every body stoped smoking and next time you buy your bottle of plonk to go with a sunday din din's and it costs over £8 you were the people who wanted to stop all the drunk's so no smoking no drinking some one ask them selves how much extra tax will every body pay as i am not looking forward to the day that happens.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
10:54am Thu 4 Feb 10
Bobfm
says...
11:03am Thu 4 Feb 10
Why are there so many smokers now congregating in High Streets. Because of course they aren't allowed to smoke inside.
If pubs could choose and smokers returned in doors then your desire would be fulfilled.
It really is about freedom to choose.
grumpy old man?
says...
11:17am Thu 4 Feb 10
http://grumpyshyscot
sman.blogspot.com/
Wurzellly
says...
11:28am Thu 4 Feb 10
Bobfm wrote:If you are not pro-smoking then I am a page 3 super model with 38EE breasticles!
moonraker, I do take your point, as I have repeatedly said I am not pro smoking and never have been, however this is a chicken/egg scenario. Why are there so many smokers now congregating in High Streets. Because of course they aren't allowed to smoke inside. If pubs could choose and smokers returned in doors then your desire would be fulfilled. It really is about freedom to choose.
.
Do me a favour you are pro-smoking because it is an execuse to moan about a decrease in pub trade.
Casual Observer
says...
11:31am Thu 4 Feb 10
Totally agree Bob - the freedom to live your life without having to endure the affects of other selfish people.
Wurzellly
says...
11:41am Thu 4 Feb 10
saymybit
says...
11:41am Thu 4 Feb 10
Wurzellly
says...
11:44am Thu 4 Feb 10
.
Flawed for one simple reason, you cannot choose. As a non-smoker you cannot choose to avoid some selfish idiot blowing smoke in your face whilst walking through town or in a pub beer garden. So you are not free to choose. You are inflicting flith on someone else and it should be banned. You have taken away my freedom to choose and that is why smoking is wrong.
Casual Observer
says...
11:44am Thu 4 Feb 10
Wurzellly
says...
11:45am Thu 4 Feb 10
saymybit wrote:spitting and swearing are illegal in public places. You can be arrested under the public order act. Anyone caught smoking should be treated accordingly.
please can we also ban spitting, swearing, chewing gum and, whilst we are at it, thongs, flip flops, football shirts, trolleys, umbrellas, motorised wheelchairs and teenage mums bellowing at their children, these all get on my nerves
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
11:51am Thu 4 Feb 10
saymybit wrote:Those are all good ideas too!
please can we also ban spitting, swearing, chewing gum and, whilst we are at it, thongs, flip flops, football shirts, trolleys, umbrellas, motorised wheelchairs and teenage mums bellowing at their children, these all get on my nerves
Casual Observer
says...
12:05pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
12:07pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Anyone who thinks that breathing a small ammount of smoke in the open air will cause any adverse heath effect is deluded. Any heath risk from passive smoking happens due to long term frequent exposure.
You should be more concerned about engine pollution in Town or city centres as theres a lot more of it and you cant see it.
But of course you probablly drive yourself, so dosnt fit well with your lack of tollerence towards other peoples lifestyle choices.
To those who dont like the smell - theres lots of things that I dont like the smell of but I dont campain to get them banned from outdoor areas.
Robh
says...
12:19pm Thu 4 Feb 10
'Don't like the smell of smoking'. So what!! I don't like the smell of garlic or curry but I don't try to ban them.
If you think democracy is about the majority having rights over the minority just look at some of the other laws around. Many are in support of minority's.
There are some pubs and clubs wher the majority of customers smoke but they are forced to ban it because the inconsiderate and intolerant minority (anti-smokers) might want to use the facility.
Bobfm
says...
12:32pm Thu 4 Feb 10
But of course lets not let FACTS get in the way.
Robh
says...
12:36pm Thu 4 Feb 10
There are non-smokers many of whom are probably ex-smokers out there who couldn't care less about smokers.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
12:47pm Thu 4 Feb 10
They cant get their head round the fact that people like myself do not view longevity of life as my primary goal. I smoke and drink a fair bit too. I'm also a fairly polite and tolerant person who causes no harm to anyone else when indulging my CHOICE of lifestyle. I have a reasonable job and pay my taxes.
The government needs to either totally ban tobacco or let smokers be.
Bobfm
says...
12:56pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Not my conclusion but a Dutch study on UK health care costs.
Casual Observer
says...
1:07pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Bobfm wrote:Not sure why you stated this rather obvious point Bob, perhaps you think more people should smoke because they will die early and thus cost the NHS less?
Reality is those who have healthy life styles, live, longer and statistical cost the NHS more as they tend to contract more debilitating diseases in later years.
Not my conclusion but a Dutch study on UK health care costs.
Wurzellly
says...
3:42pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Robh wrote:What foundation do you have for this statement?
My point is as you say. The anti-smokers are an extreme minority but tag themselves on to non-smokers to get their way. There are non-smokers many of whom are probably ex-smokers out there who couldn't care less about smokers.
.
This is a complete and utter load of rubbish. With the exception of a few non-smokers the vast majority hate the stence that smokers make. They hate the smoke and abhore being next to someone that smokes. Who in their right mind wants to come home stinking like an ash tray after a quiet beer in the local pub.
.
I read some nonsense on this site, robby_boy you are up there with the rest of the loons
Wurzellly
says...
3:44pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Casual Observer wrote:Usual meaningless waffle from bob. Just because he used to run a smokey pub he thinks he is an authority on this issue. Post a few banal barely relevant links and normal service is resumed!
Bobfm wrote: Reality is those who have healthy life styles, live, longer and statistical cost the NHS more as they tend to contract more debilitating diseases in later years. Not my conclusion but a Dutch study on UK health care costs.Not sure why you stated this rather obvious point Bob, perhaps you think more people should smoke because they will die early and thus cost the NHS less?
Casual Observer
says...
3:57pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Of course, Bob being a bit of a blunderer (understatement of the year) he occasionally accidentally links to data that destroys his arguments.
Then he goes a bit shy and changes the subject.
Wurzellly
says...
3:59pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Casual Observer wrote:Thanks for the explanation of normal service is resumed!
In fairness to Bob he has collected tons of information about smoking. He's very careful though only to showcase the rare stuff that actually supports his arguments. Of course, Bob being a bit of a blunderer (understatement of the year) he occasionally accidentally links to data that destroys his arguments. Then he goes a bit shy and changes the subject.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
4:42pm Thu 4 Feb 10
As for coming home stinking of fags after a night out - I wash my clothes after I've worn them regardless of the smoke smell or not. You would have thought that people who are so bothered by nasty smells would do that as well.
PK
says...
5:02pm Thu 4 Feb 10
They forget smokers are voters too.
Casual Observer
says...
5:21pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Imagine the thought process.. "I'm going to vote for UKIP because I like cigarettes"
..actually, I guess some people might. Takes all sorts.
EmmBee
says...
5:51pm Thu 4 Feb 10
>Trend, there is a magical barrier,
>it's called a air curtain and was
>used together with state of the art
>technology for years in many places
Next thing you know, vegetarians will be demanding beef curtains in restaurants.
yeti
says...
5:58pm Thu 4 Feb 10
i honestly dont understand how anyone in this day and age smokes anyway.cost,smell,an
d damage to health should be reason enough to quit.
Bobfm
says...
6:16pm Thu 4 Feb 10
In countries that allow choices, levels have continued to drop. That is the nature of the Human Species.
Casual Observer
says...
7:45pm Thu 4 Feb 10
EmmBee wrote:Haha, very good.
Bobfm said:
>Trend, there is a magical barrier,
>it's called a air curtain and was
>used together with state of the art
>technology for years in many places
Next thing you know, vegetarians will be demanding beef curtains in restaurants.
Robh
says...
8:00pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Wurzellly wrote:Is democracy where some idiot claims to speak for the majority??
Robh wrote: My point is as you say. The anti-smokers are an extreme minority but tag themselves on to non-smokers to get their way. There are non-smokers many of whom are probably ex-smokers out there who couldn't care less about smokers.What foundation do you have for this statement? . This is a complete and utter load of rubbish. With the exception of a few non-smokers the vast majority hate the stence that smokers make. They hate the smoke and abhore being next to someone that smokes. Who in their right mind wants to come home stinking like an ash tray after a quiet beer in the local pub. . I read some nonsense on this site, robby_boy you are up there with the rest of the loons
Bobfm
says...
8:10pm Thu 4 Feb 10
Casual Observer
says...
8:17pm Thu 4 Feb 10
"rabid"
..Bob's favourite intensifier when referring to people who don't like smoking, and presumably don't have rabies. Most odd.
Wurzellly
says...
9:15pm Thu 4 Feb 10
.
Booby runs a little pub. Pub starts to loose trade (grubby, smelly, smokey, irritable landlord - you get the picture). Smoking ban comes along downward spiral of lost trade continues (wetherspoons continue to grow by the way good beer - cheap prices you see).
.
The erstwhile booby now really struggling is looking for someone to blame. "Ah-ha" he thinks I can blame the smoking ban! "Ah-ha-ha" he has two genius ideas - we can make a UKIP policy to over turn the smoking ban - thus appealing to the type of idiot that would vote for a fringe party.
.
So folks I give you an executive summary where bobs head is at.
.
"I Thank You!"
I Too
says...
11:13pm Thu 4 Feb 10
4:42pm Thu 4 Feb 10
"
As for coming home stinking of fags after a night out - I wash my clothes after I've worn them regardless of the smoke smell or not. You would have thought that people who are so bothered by nasty smells would do that as well.
"
I guess it depends how sweaty you are?
If I've worn a jacket, for one evening, it wouldn't need decontaminating.
At christmas I was given a shirt, whilst at my mother in law's house (heavy smoker). The shirt wreaked when I got it home. It needed washing, before I'd even worn it.
Smoking stinks, very heavily.
Lingering curry smells, onions, garlic etc, do not grip permanently deep into your clothes. A short walk is all that's needed to clear the smell.
Smoking stinks enduringly.
I do feel that the current regulations are enough though. I'd sooner have a whiff of tobbacco, in an open air environment, than put up with a confined room full of the stuff.
If smokers were more considerate, the ban would never have emerged.
Unfortunately the need for a nicotine hit seems to make the user very selfish.
CB1975
says...
8:17am Fri 5 Feb 10
The figures of what smoking costs the NHS in interesting, but I wonder how this compares to what alcohol consumption costs the country, with regards to both the NHS and the Police force, with anti-sociable behaviour.
Although smoking in public places should be discouraged, especially near children who do not have the freedom to say "stop smoking in front of me", you don't see smokers smashing windows, being arrested, bleeding in the A&E department... surely in comparison, Alcohol is much worse and binge drinking will be a problem this country is already in the grip of, and will cause major financial burden to the country in the not so distant future. However, where do the government stand on this... I'm guessing drinking in public places will remain legal...
carleah
says...
11:23am Fri 5 Feb 10
Wurzellly wrote:I believe bob speaks sense and you could do with a few lessons off him ;)
Folks we all know that booby has a very biased view on this discussion. You see folks it's like this: . Booby runs a little pub. Pub starts to loose trade (grubby, smelly, smokey, irritable landlord - you get the picture). Smoking ban comes along downward spiral of lost trade continues (wetherspoons continue to grow by the way good beer - cheap prices you see). . The erstwhile booby now really struggling is looking for someone to blame. "Ah-ha" he thinks I can blame the smoking ban! "Ah-ha-ha" he has two genius ideas - we can make a UKIP policy to over turn the smoking ban - thus appealing to the type of idiot that would vote for a fringe party. . So folks I give you an executive summary where bobs head is at. . "I Thank You!"
Wurzellly
says...
11:45am Fri 5 Feb 10
carleah wrote:Bob is well known for having more hidden agendas than any other poster on here. Thus his posts always have an angle and a slant. There is absolutely nothing that I could learn from that buffoon.
Wurzellly wrote: Folks we all know that booby has a very biased view on this discussion. You see folks it's like this: . Booby runs a little pub. Pub starts to loose trade (grubby, smelly, smokey, irritable landlord - you get the picture). Smoking ban comes along downward spiral of lost trade continues (wetherspoons continue to grow by the way good beer - cheap prices you see). . The erstwhile booby now really struggling is looking for someone to blame. "Ah-ha" he thinks I can blame the smoking ban! "Ah-ha-ha" he has two genius ideas - we can make a UKIP policy to over turn the smoking ban - thus appealing to the type of idiot that would vote for a fringe party. . So folks I give you an executive summary where bobs head is at. . "I Thank You!"I believe bob speaks sense and you could do with a few lessons off him ;)
Bobfm
says...
12:53pm Fri 5 Feb 10
Grad
says...
1:57pm Fri 5 Feb 10
... however, I agree that the government is being overly imposing with regards to smoking laws. I do wonder why it is cigarettes that is the main focus when there are many ills in society. Many people have missed the point with regards to statistics. In order to justify an all encompasing ban I think that the stats on PASSIVE smoking and it's effects are much more important. As so many have said if they want to smoke and risk cancer, emphysemia, lung disease etc etc that is their choice. However, if them smoking in doorways is going to harm the other 70-80% of the population then THAT (and in my opinion ONLY that) justifies a total ban.
I also agree that perhaps pubs could apply for a license to smoke. Then all the smokers could be in one pub and all the non smokers can choose to go in or to not go in. Less people in doorways, people have a freedom of choice and staff can opt to work in either a smoking or non-smoking establishment....?
However with all that said; if it came to a referendum I would implement my personal preference and I would vote for a total ban.
Wurzellly
says...
3:30pm Fri 5 Feb 10
Bobfm wrote:Pots and kettles booby - didn't mother tell you not to throw rocks when living in a greenhouse?
Carleah unfortunately some people are devoid of any sense and even less manners.
Bobfm
says...
9:22am Sat 6 Feb 10
And you are right if there was a free vote on banning tobacco completely I too would vote to ban it. But that will never happen, and the whole while it is legal then there should be choices for all.
swindonlad87
says...
10:03am Wed 17 Feb 10
More News stories
- Hospital workers announce strike dates
- Police seek hit-and-run driver
- Students show off their talent
- Science exhibits put under wraps
- Public outcry forces U-turn on street lights
- Carillion workers hold hospital rally
- Choir must set rivalries aside for rugby date
- Hurry to nominate for pride awards
- Allotments could be used for housing
- BMW boosts offer of apprenticeships
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Wurzellly says...
7:34am Thu 4 Feb 10
.
I'll now sit back and wait for the pro-smoking brigade to start their predictable but irrelevant comparisons to car exhaust fumes and pollution from factories. Find some straws boys and clutch 'em!