wrote in message
oups.com...

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it
are
doomed to failure.)

yeah. Nicotine is also easy to make.

Not nearly so. You need to grow the stuff - and does it work here in the UK?
Then you need to dry it, etc.

Alcohol - take almost any fruit, grain, vegetable, add yeast if necessary,
ferment, done in a few days.

(I didn't necessarily say palatable :-) )

cheers,
clive

On 2007-11-10 17:53:15 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Actually it's consistent.

Freedom of choice is tied up with personal freedom, in essence.

Personal freedom in the short version is the ability to do whatever
you like without let or hindrance *provided that* it doesn't impact
on the equal right of the next person to do the same.

This one crosses the line of that definition.

It does in a restaurant but not in a bar surely?

One goes to a restaurant to consume food (always) and (often) alcohol
to go with it.

One goes to a bar to consume drinks (alcohol mostly) and (often) food
to go with it.

In effect, they are the same apart from the ambience, the focus and the degree.

Time was when there were pubs where the only food served was packets of
crisps and perhaps a packaged pork pie. These seem to be rare as
pubs havew switched to a higher emphasis on food in their offering.


One could easily have
smoking or non smoking premises.

One could, but there is the issue of finding them and the
practicalities of operation. Who decides on which is which? Do the
licensors play Solomon?



As it stands The Oxford Pipe Club can't smoke pipes in their own building.

Well they can always take snuff.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Huge wrote:
On 2007-11-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

No link between passive smoking & cancer

I normally have a gret deal of time for your opinions, David, but
this is utter crap.

The facts are that smokers die of one specific type of cancer which occurs
in one specific area of the lung.

Non smokers can also die from lung cancer, but its an entirely different
type of cancer in a different specific area of the lung.

They are unrelated. Its also been accessed that a person exposed to
passive cigarette smoke inhales the equivalent of six cigarettes per year.
The poison is in the dose.

Not crap I'm afraid. Sir Richard Doll the scientist who discovered the
link between active smoking & cancer has publicly stated that he finds the
passive smoking & cancer 'link' ridiculous.

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive smoking?

clive

On 2007-11-10 18:09:44 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-10 14:15:29 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues
would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that
way.

That doesn't pass the test of freedom to do as one chooses provided
that it doesn't impact on the same freedom afforded to others



I'm free to smoke, and so is everyone else. What kind of test is that?

Very simple. It's geographic and by proximity.


You can smoke outside and not inflict your smoke on anybody else.
You can do so in your home as well because presumably you don't have to
invite anyone else to visit.

In a public enclosed space you can't smoke without the effects being
inflicted on others to a greater or lesser degree.


You still don't say why the free market shouldn't be left to sort this one out.

It is left to the free market. You are free to buy smoking
materials and to smoke them wherever you like unless it is in a place
where it conflicts on the equal right of another not to participate in
your smoke.

On 2007-11-10 18:16:08 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Maria wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:14:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Maria wrote:
NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
I doubt it - too many doctors are alcoholics.#

They'll ethnically cleanse them first.

And I'm willing to bet most
of the BMA or whatever are drinkers.

Possibly. Depends if the politics is stronger I suppose. Hypocrisy has
never got in the way of politics before - that's why they can still
smoke in the House of Parliament bar!

This can't be true...can it?

It might be, but I know from having attended a dinner in one not long
ago that it isn't in the dining rooms or the bars next to them.

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...
Huge wrote:
On 2007-11-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

No link between passive smoking & cancer

I normally have a gret deal of time for your opinions, David, but
this is utter crap.

The facts are that smokers die of one specific type of cancer which
occurs in one specific area of the lung.

Non smokers can also die from lung cancer, but its an entirely
different type of cancer in a different specific area of the lung.

They are unrelated. Its also been accessed that a person exposed to
passive cigarette smoke inhales the equivalent of six cigarettes per
year. The poison is in the dose.

Not crap I'm afraid. Sir Richard Doll the scientist who discovered
the link between active smoking & cancer has publicly stated that he
finds the passive smoking & cancer 'link' ridiculous.

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument. There
is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument that passive
smoking is a health risk.

Note the words 'credible & scientific.'.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In article 4735f3ae@qaanaaq, Andy Hall scribeth
thus
On 2007-11-10 17:27:42 +0000, tony sayer said:

What I can't understand is that our French relatives smoke those bloody
Gaulioses or whatever their called, drink like fish, and eat ham and red
meat and yet if their dead before their 90 odd they think thats
premature!.....

Well...... it's not really true any more.

I go to France quite a lot and one doesn't see the level of smoking of
say 10-20 years ago.

I'm not sure that the drinking like fish thing is that true either,
other than th ever popular red wine, but then that is supposed to be
beneficial. Let's say that one shares a bottle of wine equally with
one other person. That's 375ml each and about 4 units of alcohol.
That's two pints of ordinary strength beer or 1.5 of stronger.
Binge drinkers in the UK are reputed to drink perhaps 6-8 pints of an
evening, so one would be talking the equivalent of 2 bottles of wine
per head which is a fair bit.

The DoH, (not that I set huge store by govrnment guidelines) recommends
that men should not drink regularly mor than 3-4 units a day - surprise
- half a bottle of wine.

The other thing that one notices with food in France is the smaller
portion sizes and the structure of many meals. I am not
particularly talking about fine dining places either. Food is then
often structured separately into the major food groups so that one
doesn't get the plate piled high with carbohydrate syndrome that has
tended to typify the UK.

I also notice that the quality of basic ingredients seems to be better.
Even the major supermarkets such as Carrefour, Auchun and E. Leclerc
have excellent presentations of fresh foods. Then there are the
traditional shops specialising in one food type each - boulangerie,
boucherie, epicerie and so on, and most will deliver locally.


No .. our mob live right out in the sticks, and its the lack of
!!Stress!! that permits them such long lives..

Everything is done slow, slower, very slow.. and tomorrow's another
day)


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..

Though the point is you don't consume other peoples alcohol unlike you
can breathe their smoke....

Them drinking affects their body not yours..

Until you get assaulted by some drunk in the city centre.

Yes very obvious Dave, but the principle is the point;!...
--
Tony Sayer

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument. There
is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument that passive
smoking is a health risk.

Well, that's just obviously complete and utter tosh. Trivially easy to
demonstrate that it is so - if the smoky atmosphere in a pub caused somebody
to so much as cough, it's evidence of a health risk.

clive

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...

The burden of proof is on the claiment and there is no credible evidence
that links passive smoking with a health risk.

********!!! Get your nicotine addiction sorted and stop acting the prat!!

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:29:36 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Maria
scribeth thus
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:01:13 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
...

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

Won't happen - doesn't stand even a miniscule chance of doing so. Alcohol is
used at all levels of society as a social lubricant, and TPTB aren't going
to give that up, and we've also got the disaster which was prohibition in
the US to demonstrate how it doesn't work.

Also, I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine - yes,
if you're addicted to it, you're stuffed, but it's rather easier to not get
that far in the first place.

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it are
doomed to failure.)

They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..

Though the point is you don't consume other peoples alcohol unlike you
can breathe their smoke....

Them drinking affects their body not yours..

Absolutely, but I am arguing that the BMA and BHF aren't motivated by
that in spite of the claims that they are - they are motivated by a
desire to see smoking eliminated completely and alcohol...well we'll
wait and see. There are several arguments they can use to increase
taxes on it and generally make it 'unacceptable' -

1) cost of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and crime policing
2) cost of treating drunks on the NHS
3) reducing alcohol dependence
4) protecting young people

If you read the papers lately, you'll see medical reports that even
one glass of wine a day is bad for you...so they are even targeting
the middle-classes on this one (most of whom gave up smoking a long
time ago!)

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:28:01 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:



Not crap I'm afraid. Sir Richard Doll the scientist who discovered the
link between active smoking & cancer has publicly stated that he finds the
passive smoking & cancer 'link' ridiculous.

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive smoking?

There probably are.

But I've seen nothing to indicate that the risks are out of proportion
to other low grade occupational hazards such as "Baker's Itch",
"Glassblower's eye", "Fiddler's Elbow" etc.

These are all issues can and should be addressed in a simple way which
is proportionate to the hazard.

It is the confabulation of Carcinoma of the Bronchus which is
invariably fatal and caused by smoking, with minor irritation caused
by exposure to passive cigarette smoke at a tiny fraction of the dose
(and also when the smoke has cooled down).

DG

Though the point is you don't consume other peoples alcohol unlike you
can breathe their smoke....

Them drinking affects their body not yours..

Absolutely, but I am arguing that the BMA and BHF aren't motivated by
that in spite of the claims that they are - they are motivated by a
desire to see smoking eliminated completely and alcohol...well we'll
wait and see. There are several arguments they can use to increase
taxes on it and generally make it 'unacceptable' -

1) cost of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and crime policing
2) cost of treating drunks on the NHS
3) reducing alcohol dependence
4) protecting young people

If you read the papers lately, you'll see medical reports that even
one glass of wine a day is bad for you...so they are even targeting
the middle-classes on this one (most of whom gave up smoking a long
time ago!)



A wizened old journalist once told me that if you believe 60% of what
you hear and 40% of what you read.. Then you'll be well informed...
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:33:55 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-10 18:09:44 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-10 14:15:29 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues
would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that
way.

That doesn't pass the test of freedom to do as one chooses provided
that it doesn't impact on the same freedom afforded to others



I'm free to smoke, and so is everyone else. What kind of test is that?

Very simple. It's geographic and by proximity.


You can smoke outside and not inflict your smoke on anybody else.
You can do so in your home as well because presumably you don't have to
invite anyone else to visit.

Some health people Mersey are currently campaigning for a smoking ban
in the home.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-20061479/

In places in California, a smoking ban has been implemented in
apartment blocks. People support this because they think it would be a
good thing if other people give up smoking. Smoking supporter or not,
this is a dangerous precedent to set IMV.


In a public enclosed space you can't smoke without the effects being
inflicted on others to a greater or lesser degree.


You still don't say why the free market shouldn't be left to sort this one out.

It is left to the free market. You are free to buy smoking
materials and to smoke them wherever you like unless it is in a place
where it conflicts on the equal right of another not to participate in
your smoke.

The original plan was to exempt private clubs and that kind of thing -
that was overturned by protests from the BMA. If everyone who is
working or socialising within the smoking area is consenting, what is
wrong with that?

If you have a private club, where members may democratically vote on
such matters, or even a cafe which is dedicated to the practise of
smoking, why should these not be exempted? Ths is not a matter of
protecting people from second-hand smoke - it is a matter of
controlling people, just the kind of micromanagement of people that
New Liebour loves and will implement further if given half a chance.

On 2007-11-10 20:54:03 +0000, Maria said:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:33:55 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-10 18:09:44 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-10 14:15:29 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues
would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that
way.

That doesn't pass the test of freedom to do as one chooses provided
that it doesn't impact on the same freedom afforded to others



I'm free to smoke, and so is everyone else. What kind of test is that?

Very simple. It's geographic and by proximity.


You can smoke outside and not inflict your smoke on anybody else.
You can do so in your home as well because presumably you don't have to
invite anyone else to visit.

Some health people Mersey are currently campaigning for a smoking ban
in the home.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-20061479/


So

it comes back to the original point - do what you like as long as it
doesn't impact on the equal right to do so of others. There isn't a
justification to exclude children from that. However,
enforceability is another thing.






In places in California, a smoking ban has been implemented in
apartment blocks. People support this because they think it would be a
good thing if other people give up smoking. Smoking supporter or not,
this is a dangerous precedent to set IMV.

I agree, and if that is the argument, it's not a reasonable one. It
is reasonable if the smoke permeates to other apartments and common
areas.





In a public enclosed space you can't smoke without the effects being
inflicted on others to a greater or lesser degree.


You still don't say why the free market shouldn't be left to sort this one out.

It is left to the free market. You are free to buy smoking
materials and to smoke them wherever you like unless it is in a place
where it conflicts on the equal right of another not to participate in
your smoke.

The original plan was to exempt private clubs and that kind of thing -
that was overturned by protests from the BMA. If everyone who is
working or socialising within the smoking area is consenting, what is
wrong with that?

Indeed - but if one is not, it fails the test.



If you have a private club, where members may democratically vote on
such matters, or even a cafe which is dedicated to the practise of
smoking, why should these not be exempted?

For a private club, perhaps, perhaps not. There are practical
difficulties though. For example, people not being able to join if
they don't like the smoke. If one runs that argument, then have a
club that excludes women and non-white people. The situation becomes
quite awkward.



Ths is not a matter of
protecting people from second-hand smoke - it is a matter of
controlling people, just the kind of micromanagement of people that
New Liebour loves and will implement further if given half a chance.

That's something else again

Maria wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:33:55 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-10 18:09:44 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-10 14:15:29 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free
venues would become the norm automatically if the majority
preferred it that way.

That doesn't pass the test of freedom to do as one chooses provided
that it doesn't impact on the same freedom afforded to others



I'm free to smoke, and so is everyone else. What kind of test is
that?

Very simple. It's geographic and by proximity.


You can smoke outside and not inflict your smoke on anybody else.
You can do so in your home as well because presumably you don't have
to invite anyone else to visit.

Some health people Mersey are currently campaigning for a smoking ban
in the home.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-20061479/

In places in California, a smoking ban has been implemented in
apartment blocks. People support this because they think it would be a
good thing if other people give up smoking. Smoking supporter or not,
this is a dangerous precedent to set IMV.


In a public enclosed space you can't smoke without the effects being
inflicted on others to a greater or lesser degree.


You still don't say why the free market shouldn't be left to sort
this one out.

It is left to the free market. You are free to buy smoking
materials and to smoke them wherever you like unless it is in a place
where it conflicts on the equal right of another not to participate
in your smoke.

The original plan was to exempt private clubs and that kind of thing -
that was overturned by protests from the BMA. If everyone who is
working or socialising within the smoking area is consenting, what is
wrong with that?

If you have a private club, where members may democratically vote on
such matters, or even a cafe which is dedicated to the practise of
smoking, why should these not be exempted? Ths is not a matter of
protecting people from second-hand smoke - it is a matter of
controlling people, just the kind of micromanagement of people that
New Liebour loves and will implement further if given half a chance.

Hear, hear. New Liebour is history for me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:
For a private club, perhaps, perhaps not. There are practical
difficulties though. For example, people not being able to join if
they don't like the smoke. If one runs that argument, then have a
club that excludes women and non-white people. The situation becomes
quite awkward.

But what is wrong with a private club deciding that it doesn't want
non-white, or white, women or men, smokers or non smokers?

Why should I not be able to start a white smoking men only club if I want
too? Or a non-white, non smoking, womans club?

New Liebour seems to fund black paraplegic lesbian theatre workshops?
Discrimination is relative.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

The burden of proof is on the claiment and there is no credible
evidence that links passive smoking with a health risk.

********!!! Get your nicotine addiction sorted and stop acting the
prat!!

I think I've just won that point.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument. There
is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument
that passive smoking is a health risk.

Well, that's just obviously complete and utter tosh. Trivially easy to
demonstrate that it is so - if the smoky atmosphere in a pub caused
somebody to so much as cough, it's evidence of a health risk.

Obviously complete and utter tosh? Give me some scientific study that back
up your claim. The BMA & Guvmint can't.

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also cough.

Give me the credible scientific evidence and I'll fall over & retract my
opinion - oh but you can't can you?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've always said that the residue of my pleasure ina pub is pee so if
anyone should impose their residue of their pleasure on me in the form
of toxic fumes would they like some of mine in return.

The 'residue' of your pleasure 'ina' pub appears to be brain stem damage.
Common with alcoholics. Stop before it kills you.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article 4735f993@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
You can smoke outside and not inflict your smoke on anybody else.
You can do so in your home as well because presumably you don't have to
invite anyone else to visit.

In a public enclosed space you can't smoke without the effects being
inflicted on others to a greater or lesser degree.

So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub for
smokers only? Or a members only club for smokers? The fact that this
isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can smoke indoors as can
some in patients of hospitals.

--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-11-10 22:15:44 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
For a private club, perhaps, perhaps not. There are practical
difficulties though. For example, people not being able to join if
they don't like the smoke. If one runs that argument, then have a
club that excludes women and non-white people. The situation becomes
quite awkward.

But what is wrong with a private club deciding that it doesn't want
non-white, or white, women or men, smokers or non smokers?

Why should I not be able to start a white smoking men only club if I want
too? Or a non-white, non smoking, womans club?

New Liebour seems to fund black paraplegic lesbian theatre workshops?
Discrimination is relative.

I wasn't really commenting on whether or not it was a good idea, only
that there can be implications going beyond th e immediate intention.

In message 4736240f@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
If you have a private club, where members may democratically vote on
such matters, or even a cafe which is dedicated to the practise of
smoking, why should these not be exempted?

For a private club, perhaps, perhaps not. There are practical
difficulties though. For example, people not being able to join if
they don't like the smoke. If one runs that argument, then have a
club that excludes women and non-white people. The situation becomes
quite awkward.

I don't think so

The argument goes "This is what we do , feel free to join if you accept
it"

Its only an exclusion as far as people exclude themselves because they
are not in agreement with what members do.


--
geoff

In article ,
Maria wrote:
Ths is not a matter of protecting people from second-hand smoke - it is
a matter of controlling people, just the kind of micromanagement of
people that New Liebour loves and will implement further if given half a
chance.

Wasn't it a 'free' vote?

--
*Never test the depth of the water with both feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Maria
writes

They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..


I'm only abusive in cyberspace


--
geoff

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

The burden of proof is on the claiment and there is no credible
evidence that links passive smoking with a health risk.

********!!! Get your nicotine addiction sorted and stop acting the
prat!!

I think I've just won that point.

Your have sweet FA, you are addicted to nicotine which has fried your brain.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've always said that the residue of my pleasure ina pub is pee so if
anyone should impose their residue of their pleasure on me in the form
of toxic fumes would they like some of mine in return.

The

Please eff off as you are a total idiot!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote in message

have to say the type of shelter you are allowed to erect for smokers is
stupid for pubs that depend heavily on wet sales for their income, as
these pubs always seemed to have highest number of smokers
it was definitely turning brass monkeys outside tonight.

Yes - the law seems designed to punish smokers. One of the few laws of
this type I can think of. Must have been drafted by an ex-smoker. An
outsider must consider the wisdom of this parliament which enacts such
swinging legislation for one anti-social drug while positively encouraging
the use of another - alcohol - which has at least as many if not more
undesirable effects on individuals and society at large.

If the law allowed it and if there was a demand I would happily construct a
separate smokers bar.
At present they are sitting outside under the warm fragrant blast from the
kitchen extractor fan, word must have got around about this as the numbers
have actually increased.
An unexpected turn to this is sales of chips and garlic bread has doubled.
As a non-smoker however, I still think the smoking ban in public places is
justified, I also think you have the worst case of denial about the ill
effects of smoking I have ever heard.



-

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
For a private club, perhaps, perhaps not. There are practical
difficulties though. For example, people not being able to join if
they don't like the smoke. If one runs that argument, then have a
club that excludes women and non-white people. The situation becomes
quite awkward.

But what is wrong with a private club deciding that it doesn't want
non-white, or white, women or men, smokers or non smokers?

Why should I not be able to start a white smoking men only club if I want
too? Or a non-white, non smoking, womans club?


No reason that I can think of.


New Liebour seems to fund black paraplegic lesbian theatre workshops?
Discrimination is relative.



Of course: positive discrimination keeps the lobbies at bay.

In article ,
Mark wrote:
I also think you have the worst case of denial about the ill
effects of smoking I have ever heard.

Eh? I've not said one word about its ill effects. I certainly don't deny
the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free environment - but I also
think smokers - and the owners of pubs etc have rights too. And I think a
perfectly acceptable compromise could have been reached.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've always said that the residue of my pleasure ina pub is pee so if
anyone should impose their residue of their pleasure on me in the form
of toxic fumes would they like some of mine in return.

The 'residue' of your pleasure 'ina' pub appears to be brain stem
damage. Common with alcoholics. Stop before it kills you.

Please eff off as you are a total idiot!

I rest my case. Your brain is so befuddled you repeat yourself
constantly. Seek help now.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-11-10 23:04:37 +0000, geoff said:

In message 4736240f@qaanaaq, Andy Hall writes
If you have a private club, where members may democratically vote on
such matters, or even a cafe which is dedicated to the practise of
smoking, why should these not be exempted?

For a private club, perhaps, perhaps not. There are practical
difficulties though. For example, people not being able to join if
they don't like the smoke. If one runs that argument, then have a
club that excludes women and non-white people. The situation becomes
quite awkward.

I don't think so

The argument goes "This is what we do , feel free to join if you accept it"

Its only an exclusion as far as people exclude themselves because they
are not in agreement with what members do.

Which may turn out to be self defeating in that one might *want* to
have people from the excluded group as members for other reasons.

Clearly the Oxford Pipe Club would be an obvious exception since there
would be no point in joining unless one smoked a pipe; but that is
unusual as an example. Most are more generic or have a focus on
something not to do with smoking.

On 2007-11-10 22:59:38 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4735f993@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
You can smoke outside and not inflict your smoke on anybody else.
You can do so in your home as well because presumably you don't have to
invite anyone else to visit.

In a public enclosed space you can't smoke without the effects being
inflicted on others to a greater or lesser degree.

So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub for
smokers only?

Not necessarily easy to implement

Or a members only club for smokers?

Comments to geoff on that one

The fact that this
isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can smoke indoors

that's a missed opportunity. It could have been made part of the
punishment and for those not in prison, part of the deterrent, and a
rather inexpensive one.



as can
some in patients of hospitals.

There's government involvement here. Looking for logic can be difficult.

In article 4736b5f4@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub
for smokers only?

Not necessarily easy to implement

No pub would be forced to implement it. Many have spent at least as much
providing the maximum cover allowed by the law in their gardens etc. And
many have provided multiple patio heaters too - simply great for the
environment.

Or a members only club for smokers?

Comments to geoff on that one

The fact that this isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can
smoke indoors

that's a missed opportunity. It could have been made part of the
punishment and for those not in prison, part of the deterrent, and a
rather inexpensive one.

Heh heh. Given the ready availability of illegal drugs in prison - and the
blind eye turned to this - I'd guess you have little understanding of the
system and the notion that it does much as a deterrent.

as can
some in patients of hospitals.

There's government involvement here. Looking for logic can be
difficult.

And towards the whole sorry business. I don't know of any smokers who
don't accept the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free environment in
public places. Pity they don't reciprocate. What was needed was a little
common sense when enabling the legislation. As if.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I've always said that the residue of my pleasure ina pub is pee so if
anyone should impose their residue of their pleasure on me in the form
of toxic fumes would they like some of mine in return.

The 'residue' of your pleasure 'ina' pub appears to be brain stem
damage. Common with alcoholics. Stop before it kills you.

Please eff off as you are a total idiot!

I

Please eff off as you are a total idiot!

On 2007-11-11 09:48:40 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4736b5f4@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub
for smokers only?

Not necessarily easy to implement

No pub would be forced to implement it.

Hmm.. but then those that couldn't for space reasons would be
bitching and moaning, as would those not allowed to implement for
planning reasons.


Many have spent at least as much
providing the maximum cover allowed by the law in their gardens etc. And
many have provided multiple patio heaters too - simply great for the
environment.

Certainly around the terraces anyway. The alfresco dining
opportunity should be appealing.



Or a members only club for smokers?

Comments to geoff on that one

The fact that this isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can
smoke indoors

that's a missed opportunity. It could have been made part of the
punishment and for those not in prison, part of the deterrent, and a
rather inexpensive one.

Heh heh. Given the ready availability of illegal drugs in prison - and the
blind eye turned to this - I'd guess you have little understanding of the
system and the notion that it does much as a deterrent.

I don't suppose it does; but then prisons don't seem in general to be
acting as much of a deterrent but rather an apprenctices college for
those wishing to further their careers in the alternative economy.




as can
some in patients of hospitals.

There's government involvement here. Looking for logic can be
difficult.

And towards the whole sorry business. I don't know of any smokers who
don't accept the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free environment in
public places. Pity they don't reciprocate. What was needed was a little
common sense when enabling the legislation. As if.

It comes back to the original and simple point.

A non smoker can pursue their activity of choosing not to smoke without
impinging on the smoker. There is nothing that prevents the smoker
going into any place where there isn't smoking.

The smoker can't do the reverse.

A wizened old journalist once told me that if you believe 60% of what
you hear and 40% of what you read.. Then you'll be well informed...
--

I've just read this. So by your own logic, 60% of what you wrote above is
********?

mark

In article 4736e402@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-11 09:48:40 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4736b5f4@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub
for smokers only?

Not necessarily easy to implement

No pub would be forced to implement it.

Hmm.. but then those that couldn't for space reasons would be
bitching and moaning, as would those not allowed to implement for
planning reasons.

Why? According to most, pubs will make more money by the smoking ban - all
those who didn't like smoky pubs will now flock to them. And to eat in the
wonderful restaurants they all must have, apparently.

Many have spent at least as much providing the maximum cover allowed
by the law in their gardens etc. And many have provided multiple patio
heaters too - simply great for the environment.

Certainly around the terraces anyway. The alfresco dining
opportunity should be appealing.

You'd eat outside with wind whistling through the sort of 'walls' allowed
and rain driving onto the table from the side with no wind break at all?

If you could put up with this a little smoke would be nothing. ;-)

Or a members only club for smokers?

Comments to geoff on that one

The fact that this isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can
smoke indoors

that's a missed opportunity. It could have been made part of the
punishment and for those not in prison, part of the deterrent, and a
rather inexpensive one.

Heh heh. Given the ready availability of illegal drugs in prison - and
the blind eye turned to this - I'd guess you have little understanding
of the system and the notion that it does much as a deterrent.

I don't suppose it does; but then prisons don't seem in general to be
acting as much of a deterrent but rather an apprenctices college for
those wishing to further their careers in the alternative economy.

No matter how bad you make the conditions - and remember warders etc have
to work in the same ones - the deterrent aspect has never really been
proved to work. It may seem it *should* to law abiding citizens - but they
don't think in quite the same way as many criminals.

as can
some in patients of hospitals.

There's government involvement here. Looking for logic can be
difficult.

And towards the whole sorry business. I don't know of any smokers who
don't accept the rights of non smokers to have a smoke free
environment in public places. Pity they don't reciprocate. What was
needed was a little common sense when enabling the legislation. As if.

It comes back to the original and simple point.

A non smoker can pursue their activity of choosing not to smoke without
impinging on the smoker. There is nothing that prevents the smoker
going into any place where there isn't smoking.

The smoker can't do the reverse.

Exactly. Non smokers - especially those who were once smokers and have
stopped - simply want to try and *prevent* others smoking. Regardless. And
will invent all sorts of arguments to back up their prejudices. Exactly
like most religions.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 4736e402@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-11 09:48:40 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:
In article 4736b5f4@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:

So what would be the difference if there were an outbuilding at a pub
for smokers only?

Not necessarily easy to implement

No pub would be forced to implement it.

Hmm.. but then those that couldn't for space reasons would be
bitching and moaning, as would those not allowed to implement for
planning reasons.

Why? According to most, pubs will make more money by the smoking ban - all
those who didn't like smoky pubs will now flock to them. And to eat in the
wonderful restaurants they all must have, apparently.

Many have spent at least as much providing the maximum cover allowed
by the law in their gardens etc. And many have provided multiple patio
heaters too - simply great for the environment.

Certainly around the terraces anyway. The alfresco dining
opportunity should be appealing.

You'd eat outside with wind whistling through the sort of 'walls' allowed
and rain driving onto the table from the side with no wind break at all?

If you could put up with this a little smoke would be nothing. ;-)

Or a members only club for smokers?

Comments to geoff on that one

The fact that this isn't allowed is pure malice. Yet prisoners can
smoke indoors

that's a missed opportunity. It could have been made part of the
punishment and for those not in prison, part of the deterrent, and a
rather inexpensive one.

Heh heh. Given the ready availability of illegal drugs in prison - and
the blind eye turned to this - I'd guess you have little understanding
of the system and the notion that it does much as a deterrent.

I don't suppose it does; but then prisons don't seem in general to be
acting as much of a deterrent but rather an apprenctices college for
those wishing to further their careers in the alternative economy.

No matter how bad you make the conditions - and remember warders etc have
to work in the same ones - the deterrent aspect has never really been
proved to work. It may seem it *should* to law abiding citizens - but they
don't think in quite the same way as many criminals.

It certainly does work, if there were no deterrent there would be
many more crimes committed. It would be nice if it worked a lot more
effectively of course.

And thats not hard to achieve, we just live in a system unwilling to
do it. One prisoner per cell, as close to solitary confinement as
possible. Loos not able to be used as communication lines, food
delivered to cells, kept indoors the whole time, just a whole lot of
silence and solitariness. Do that and you can then shorten the
sentences to get the same effect.


NT

"Maria" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:29:36 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Maria
scribeth thus
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:01:13 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
m...

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

Won't happen - doesn't stand even a miniscule chance of doing so.
Alcohol is
used at all levels of society as a social lubricant, and TPTB aren't
going
to give that up, and we've also got the disaster which was prohibition
in
the US to demonstrate how it doesn't work.

Also, I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine -
yes,
if you're addicted to it, you're stuffed, but it's rather easier to not
get
that far in the first place.

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it
are
doomed to failure.)

They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..

Though the point is you don't consume other peoples alcohol unlike you
can breathe their smoke....

Them drinking affects their body not yours..

Absolutely, but I am arguing that the BMA and BHF aren't motivated by
that in spite of the claims that they are - they are motivated by a
desire to see smoking eliminated completely

A good thing too. They are very responsible. Thank God it was banned in
pubs. What hell holes they were when thick with toxic fumes.