brian pearson

Would you have anything against establishments opening for smokers to purely smoke? They would go in and buy cigarettes and smoke them. The workers would obviously realise that they would be working in a smokey atmosphere. Signs outside would tell the public what the place was all about and you Kernow would stay well away. Everyone happy.

Now if you would try and stop people from enjoying their legal right to smoke and work in a 'smoke bar' then I would seriously think about your views on individuals liberty. I doubt you would have a problem with this idea and if 'smoking bars' opened I think you could live with it Kernow.

The smoking bar is succesful. After a year of business and no complaints (who would complain about consenting adults legally smoking) they decide a drink would be nice when they are enjoying a fag and apply for a liscence.

Now what would the objection be?

mkpdavies

It doesn't matter what side is being "discriminated" against. The OWNER of the pub gets to decide. It is his pub and his call.

Telling how he can run his own pub is fascist. End of story.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

kernow

I have nothing against people smoking, ( they can smoke themselves black!) as my late Father always accused me of doing!) Now as a non smoker I realise how bad it was for people when I smoked in a pub! People who were non smokers who had to tolerate me and my ilk blowing smoke all over them, making their hair and clothes stink! I never thought the day would come when I could sit in a Pub drinking a pint and not having a cig' I've been doing that for the past eight years! I know I'm the worst kind of b*****d, an ex smoker who now hates smoke being blown over him!

brian pearson

No they didn't. They could have gone to the non smoking pubs that would obviously be so succesful and full of life instead.

kernow

I don't recollect there being any non smoking Pubs eight years ago!

Darren Green

Passive smoking is harmless????

Tell it to the British Medical Association (BMA)...

* Second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 – 30%
* Passive smoke increases the risk of heart disease by 25 – 35%
* Eight out of 10 asthmatics say second hand smoke can trigger an attack
* Passive smoke almost doubles the risk of stroke
* Second hand smoke causes asthma, respiratory illnesses and ear infections in children
* Eight out of 10 people know that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer

These statistics were taken from their website.

Darren

Westcountryman

As an asthmatic I can indeed confirm that it can trigger an asthma attack. I still oppose the smoking ban.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

brian pearson

So instead of people opening some up you want our interfering, nannying, fascist government to tell people whats best for them?

What next?

mkpdavies

I don't like smoking, I have asthma too, so guess what. I don't go in smoky pubs. I suppose I could whine at the government to force everyone to cater for my wants, but that would make me a fascist.

I don't like fish either, but I don't demand restaurants take it of their menu because the smell makes me feel sick.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

brian pearson

Apart from asthma the rest sounds like baseless, made up tripe. 'eight out of 10 people know second hand smoke can cause lung cancer'. More like eight out of 10 people believe what they are told.