Buy to lets

[Owain]

One would think that such an organisation could raise sufficient funds selling DVDs to the fetish market that they would not need public monies.

Owain

[Doctor Drivel]

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

[Doctor Drivel]

Please eff off as you are a total idiot!

[Mark]

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 Natural Philosopher]

No reason that I can think of.

Of course: positive discrimination keeps the lobbies at bay.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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

[Andy Hall]

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.

[Andy Hall]

Not necessarily easy to implement

Comments to geoff on that one

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.

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

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.

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.

[Doctor Drivel]

Please eff off as you are a total idiot!

[Andy Hall]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Mark]

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

mark

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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.

[meow2222]

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

[Doctor Drivel]

Not the two wrongs make a right argument again. How pathetic!!!! No wonder he votes Tory, the toxic smoke has fried his brain.

[Doctor Drivel]

should think so. If in force and the health of child is impaired then the parents should be prosecuted. As also those who allow their children to be obese.

[Doctor Drivel]

We can all go back to poverty and deprivation and people living on the streets, while the rich strata got richer. Oh it was so good under those fools wasn't it? Fab indeed!!

[Doctor Drivel]

A racist too.

[Doctor Drivel]

If you think you won anything, the toxic fumes have fried your brains.