"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your drug
is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful you just
choose to ignore it.

There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people -
more die from its effects each month than die in a year from heroin.
Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city centres are near
no go areas due to its abuse.

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
addiction.

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
addiction.

Its irrelevant as someone having a drink has zero effect on anyone else
unless it is taken to excess, which has been illegal for a lot longer than
the smoking ban but you didn't care then. A smoker effects everyone around
the second they light up even if you choose to ignore that fact.
As for bringing heroin into it then if you think smoking is comparable to
heroin I won't argue with you.. now how to get it classified as "A"?



So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
government's love of control.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been there
far longer than antismoking laws.

And are ignored or not enforced.

And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
pub/restaurant or cinema.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the influence
of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

Apart from the fact that smokers often drink too, one type of addiction is
often associated with others, so many of those killed have been killed by
smokers. Who knows now they can't smoke in the pub they may not get drunk
and the smoking ban could be saving on assaults too. Anyone got the figures
yet?