What Are They Going To Ban Next????

[Driller]

[QUOTE=staggeringman] what is the government going to ban next? yes there are a lot of people out there who agree and a lot that dont.the do gooders have nearly got there way in banning a tradition that goes back to the egyptions.... HUNTING...something that has been the way of life for man since time began,today i picked up the paper and read that the vegitarians now want to ban fish and chips...can you believe it ...fish and chips

If you belive everything you read when you "pick up your paper" then I suggest you really have gone out with the fairys.. ban fish AND chips? what have potatoes got to do with it?

[chav1]

trust me when the loonies have run out of animals to protect they will start defending the rights of vegetables

kinda looking after their own kind if you will


i for one am against animal cruelty and when i had a mice infestation i used those humane mouse traps that simply trap the mouse so you can empty the trap elswhere and let the mouse run free

i should however mention i own a corn snake and it was pretty interesting to see how the snake crushed the mouses spine and ate it alive still twitching as it slid down the snakes throat when i emptied the trap into its tank

thank god for HUMANE mouse traps they saved me buying frozen mice for a few weeks

[jambutty]

I’m not attacking you personally pixie as you stated in this ‘karma’ thing, it is just that you represent the anti-smoking brigade who target the hapless smoker whilst ignoring and even condoning the motor vehicle.

Just a small aside. It is a pity that some people do not have the courage to make their insulting comments in public forum rather than hiding them anonymously in this ‘karma’ thing. Who was it who didn’t have the moral guts to call me an ar.se.ho.le in public but had to hide it in a karma? I challenge you to show yourself and make your snide comment in full view of the forum members. Same goes for the karma comment of “not a valid argument”. Is that the best that you can do “not valid argument”? Make a ludicrous comment and not explain why I don’t have a valid argument.

So as you see it pixie, ‘the main difference is that smoking is done for personal pleasure’ is it and driving around to the shops, the school run, visiting, going on holiday etc is not done for pleasure or convenience. It’s a necessity is it? Sorry but in the main there is public transport to take people to the shops or school or visiting friends and even for going on holiday. What’s that? How do you get onto a bus with three kids and umpteen bags of shopping? With difficulty or you leave the kids at home with a baby sitter. We managed in the forties, fifties, sixties and even seventies. So why can’t we manage now? But it’s so much easier and more convenient to use a car to load all the shopping in and so much quicker than waiting around for a bus. Yes it is and fifty cars pollute much more than a bus, even one that belches noxious fumes and there are plenty of them around.

Let me acquaint you with some stark facts. A car with a one litre engine travelling at 30 mph will have the engine revving at around 3,000rpm. That is 3,000 litres of pollution every single minute. In ten minutes that car will have polluted the atmosphere with 30,000 litres of noxious gasses. In that same ten minutes one person would smoke just one fag. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the quantity of smoke that produces? Let us be really generous and suggest 100 litres – that is 300 times less than that car. Most cars have a larger capacity engine than one litre and thus will produce more gasses than the example above.

‘Smoking serves no purpose whatsoever’ pixie? As a non-smoker you wouldn’t know what purpose smoking achieves and that is a fatuous statement to make.

It would be too much of a personal inconvenience to curtail the use of cars so we ignore the effect on our atmosphere and effectively condone the pollution. But just because a non-smoker would not be inconvenienced by curtailing smoking they target the smoker and the car is sacrosanct. There is the hypocrisy.

Sadly in the last ten or twenty years society has degenerated into a me, me, me, me, me society with hardly a thought for their fellow man/woman. That is a generalisation so don’t come back with the “I care for others” answer. You are the exception.

Has anyone noticed that as you reach and pass retirement age you start to become invisible in shopping precincts, supermarkets, anywhere where there are crowds of people and even whilst driving? “Sorry I didn’t see you” is the standard excuse as someone tried to barge pass knocking you aside.

I’m not attacking the car because everyone uses a vehicle either personally or to have goods delivered to shops. We all contribute to the atmospheric pollution that is the bane of our lives but the motor vehicle does much more than tobacco ever did and to just target smokers is hypocritical in the extreme. Sadly the non-smokers are not prepared to accept that as vehicle users they cause far more pollution than thousands of fags. “We can pollute because the car/lorry is necessary and smoking is not” is the only pseudo rationale they can come up with.

Just a reminder to the anti-smoking lobby. Next time that a neighbour lights up their barbecue or creates a garden waste bonfire in their back garden or on the 5th of November lights a proper bonfire for the kids, go and knock on his front door and ask him to put the fire out because the smoke is offending you. See what you get!

Not too far from where I live there is a haulage depot that has been decreed a no smoking area by the management. Workers who want a smoke have to clear the entire premises and stand on the road to puff away. Yet the yard contains dozens of lorry tractors all moving around connecting, disconnecting and moving the trailers around and of course belching out tons and tons of cough inducing exhaust fumes not to mention the passing traffic on the road. The yard and office staff is subjected to breathing in this filth yet they cannot stand a bit of tobacco smoke. OK! So this situation is down to government edicts but it does show how ridiculous the edicts are.

Get yourself round to my flat WillowTheWisp when twice a day during school time the air is chokingly thick with disgusting vehicle exhaust fumes from the traffic that congregates close to the school gates across the road and waits with engines running. It is only with the blessing of a decent breeze that doesn’t quite dispel the fumes before the next lot invades everything and I mean everything.

I have knocked on a car window and asked the driver to switch off the engine because the engine fumes were pervading my flat and what did I get? A load of abuse and was even threatened on one occasion. At 68 and registered disabled I am no match for the driver so I have to go away and suffer in silence.

I have no idea how old you are WillowTheWisp but just when did you find this urge to wash your hair and clothes after being in a smoke filled room? Early teens perhaps or is it a touch of recently jumping on the bandwagon because you are a non-smoker and have come across an opportunity to have your opinion forced onto others?

Verb sap!

Now I am off to enjoy my Sunday lunch followed by a nice mug of tea and a relaxing fag and rejoice in the fact that today is Sunday and the school is closed so that I can breathe in a relatively pollution free atmosphere or at least one of my own making.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I didn't suddenly find an urge. I cannot stand the smell of stale smoke in my hair and on my clothes. To me it is nauseating. Whilst I am in the smoky environment it isn't the same, maybe that's because the smoke is "fresh" but by the time I get home and certainly by the following morning the smell is quite sickening and disgusting to me. I would say I have felt this way for the past 40 years so if you consider that a recent bandwagon then criticise away.

Did I ever say I was forcing other people to wash their hair? The only situation in which I enforce my opinion on others is if they wish to enter my home. They are NOT permitted to smoke in my home. They are free to enter and not smoke, or to go away and smoke elsewhere.

If I'm out with a group of people who smoke then it is my choice to be amongst them as I know that they smoke and I wouldn't try to force them to stop just because I am with them.

However, I choose to sit in a smokefree environment when eating and choose the non-smoking area in a restaurant because I do not like to taste smoke. I prefer to taste my food. I wouldn't go out for a meal and enjoy it if someone at the same table was smoking. It puts me off my meal if smoke drifts over from a neighbouring table. Why should I have to suffer?

[-pixie]

Ok then jambutty, you tell me what purpose, other than personal pleasure, smoking achieves.

I’m not attacking the car because everyone uses a vehicle either personally or to have goods delivered to shops. We all contribute to the atmospheric pollution that is the bane of our lives but the motor vehicle does much more than tobacco ever did and to just target smokers is hypocritical in the extreme. Sadly the non-smokers are not prepared to accept that as vehicle users they cause far more pollution than thousands of fags. “We can pollute because the car/lorry is necessary and smoking is not” is the only pseudo rationale they can come up with.

I'm a non smoker and I don't drive. Therefore I don't pollute either way. I use public transport if its necessary for me to go out of town.

And I might add that you wouldn't understand the urge, sudden or otherwise, to wash your hair and clothes after being in a smoky room. I honestly don't think that smokers notice the smell as much, but it is awful to non smokers. Don't knock Willow just because she prefers to be clean, rather than smell of stale smoke. Its exactly what I do if I have been in a smoky room, or ifI have been out to the pub or whatever.

[staggeringman]

pixie can you imagine me trying to give up smoking everyone saying you are doing well and then lighting up,i have seen customers give up and they still come in,if the government where going to ban it outright they would are should i say if they shut down all the makers of tobbacco,fags cigars they would lose that much revenue you would think you where living in buckingham palace because of the shortfall in money going in the coffers....(pun)...sorry...he...hee the only places that there is going to be a total ban is the places they serve food and working mens clubs.This ban has only come about because of claims made from barstaff not joe public,because if a non-smoker did not want to go in a pub/bar where there is a lot of smoking they would not go in simple as that.

[chav1]

i am a smoker and i personaly think their shoudl be smoking pubs and non smoking pubs so people can choose

we have a non smoking pub in accy already and it would be nice to see more

well it was a non smoking pub ime not sure if it still is ( the one that used to be millers next to the railway station)

[staggeringman]

Originally Posted by chav1

i am a smoker and i personaly think their shoudl be smoking pubs and non smoking pubs so people can choose

we have a non smoking pub in accy already and it would be nice to see more

well it was a non smoking pub ime not sure if it still is ( the one that used to be millers next to the railway station)

now called accringtons pride never see it open at nights seems to be a glorified cafe that can sell ale.

[chav1]

i must admit that i have been fighting against the evil weed for the past 2 years and when i am in one of my non smoking phases the smell knocks me sick but no body makes me goto pubs i choose to put up with it and the booze helps me cope lol

[staggeringman]

Originally Posted by chav1

i must admit that i have been fighting against the evil weed for the past 2 years and when i am in one of my non smoking phases the smell knocks me sick but no body makes me goto pubs i choose to put up with it and the booze helps me cope lol

it would do if blokade was still open ....lol

[jambutty]

OK! WillowTheWisp you’ve found cigarette smoke nauseating for 40 years or more. Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and declare that in all that time you have campaigned against smokers or is it as I suggested that you are adding your voice to the rest when in the past you kept silent. That’s called jumping on the band wagon.

I have just read through my post very, very carefully and nowhere does it even hint at suggesting that you force other people to wash their hair. So what was “Did I ever say I was forcing other people to wash their hair?” all about? Oh! I get it. Muddying the waters to deflect from the real discussion.

Nowhere have I suggested that smokers should be able to smoke where they choose and I respect yours or anyone else’s right to declare their own property smoke free or anything else free as they choose. My argument is about the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking lobby as they complain about passive smoking and then drive away in their cars.

I agree entirely that non-smokers should not be subjected to tobacco fumes in restaurants or pubs but if non-smokers have the right not to be infected by noxious fumes then I have the same right not to be affected by lethal vehicle exhaust fumes. I suppose that when I find some overpowering perfumes and aftershaves sickening I have to put up with it.

Why won’t the anti-smokers admit that their use of motor vehicles pollutes the atmosphere far more than tobacco ever has? They won’t because it would mean that they would be grossly inconvenienced if a campaign against the motor vehicle were launched with the same success as the anti-smoking campaign. If the non-smokers are not prepared to be inconvenienced by not having cars then why should I be inconvenienced by not smoking? We ALL have the same rights!

“Why should I have to suffer?” You shouldn’t but why should I suffer your car exhaust fumes if you drive or the fumes from the public transport that you use or the fumes from lorries that deliver food and other goods to the shops where you do your shopping? What makes your rights more important than mine or anyone else’s?

Any argument you can put up against smoking, I can put up the same argument against cars etc. But there are more cars than there is smokers so let majority rule and ban the motor vehicle. Like anyone else I wouldn’t be happy with a ban on cars because I DEPEND on one to get about so if vehicles are not to be banned even though they pollute far more than tobacco smoke, then neither should smoking.

Each property owner should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not and let market forces decide if they made the right decision.

Smoking provides billions of pounds for the exchequer pixie and gives employment to those involved in the manufacture, distribution, sale of tobacco products and collection of taxes imposed on them.

So pixie, because you don’t smoke and you don’t drive you don’t contribute to pollution do you? Yet in the very next sentence you admit to using public transport and that does not pollute? Do you shop at shops that get their goods delivered by horse and cart? No! The goods are delivered by motor transport. I assume that you use electricity in your home or gas. Electricity is generated in power stations that burn gas or oil and the pollution from them is second to the aircraft. When you turn on your gas cooker, if you have one, the gas you burn creates pollution, as does the gas used in central heating or gas fires. Have you ever been on holiday abroad and flown there? Aircraft - the greatest polluters of them all.

In a nut shell we all pollute simply by being here and utilising the resources available to us. So what makes one form of pollution more of a target than other forms? Is it not hypocritical to complain about someone smoking and you find the smell nauseating etc whilst at the same time ignoring a smoker’s claim that vehicle exhaust fumes are just as nauseating to them? Of course it is but the self-righteous non-smokers will not admit it and continue in their pompous way.

It’s the ‘holier than thou’ attitude of the anti-smoking brigade that sticks in my craw.

Are there any non-smokers out there prepared to admit that if they want smoking to be banned because of the pollution to their air, they should also campaign just as vociferously against vehicle exhaust pollution? If you don’t mind I won’t hold my breath.

[pendy]

I agree with Jambutty that EVERYONE'S rights are important. I believe that pubs should have non-smoking areas where possible. That said, how can you sit with your friends if they are smokers and you are not? One London lung surgeon (yes, he is a smoker!) has said that walking the length of Oxford Street carries as much pollution into the lungs as smoking 40 cigarettes.

We can't and shouldn't ban everything - just give people a choice.

[staggeringman]

Originally Posted by pendy

I agree with Jambutty that EVERYONE'S rights are important. I believe that pubs should have non-smoking areas where possible. That said, how can you sit with your friends if they are smokers and you are not? One London lung surgeon (yes, he is a smoker!) has said that walking the length of Oxford Street carries as much pollution into the lungs as smoking 40 cigarettes.

We can't and shouldn't ban everything - just give people a choice.

WHAT ABOUT THEM POOR HORSES THAT STAND ON THE PROMENADE ALL DAY BREATHING THE FUMES FROM CARS,BUSES AND LORRIES? I THINK WE SHOULD BAN ALL THE VEHICLES FROM GOING ALONG THE PROM.THEY WOULD MAKE MORE REVENUE ON THE TRAMS AND THE HORSES WOULDNT NEED TO HAVE INHALERS!

[keyco]

but why dont they horses walk away from it if they dont like it

[Bazf]

A good senario....... ban all cars ..done.... now we have a problem how are you smokers going to get to hospital when you have chronic bronchitis, atherosclerosis, Blockage to the vascular supply to the legs, etc... do you expect to be carried? you should be light enough an average weight loss of about 5st when you get cancer.