"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , dennis@home
wrote:


"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.

I'm quite happy with the smoking ban in public places. But don't consider
privately owned buildings like pubs or clubs to be public places in the
same way as you apparently do. And certainly don't see the need to force
smokers outside to the pavement etc when a smoking area inside could
easily be provided. That is simply trying to punish them.

Smoking isn't banned in private buildings.. it is banned in places of
employment though.
Strictly speaking if the handyman smokes on a job it is an offence AFAICS.


A smoker effects everyone around the second they light up even if you
choose to ignore that fact.

As does someone who farts. Are you going to make that illegal too?

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"?

Think like all alcohol lovers you miss the fact that alcohol does more
damage than heroin - but is legal and positively encouraged. Which makes
you somewhat of a bigot. But we knew that, don't we?



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?

Who knows indeed. Are you going to invent any more theories to back your
intolerance?

What's the problem with inventing theories?
That's what people do.
Then you try and prove them.
You don't lie like smokers do and claim there is no evidence even when there
is.
As it happens it is easy to prove what I said above but not the magnitude of
the effect.

As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see why I
should let you make me ill.
If I came into the pub and started glue sniffing next to you, would you
complain or just sit there and breath in the fumes?
Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.