Cigarette smoke perculates through the walls from next door. Ugh. How can I seal it?

It is a public. Its doors are freely open to the public. It is a privately own premises open to the public.

Reply to
IMM
Loading thread data ...

As with you, he hasn't presented intelligent points.

Reply to
IMM

And IMM is living proof of that to be sure, begorrah. :-)

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

People should be banned from smoking in their own homes if there are children in the house. Forcing children to breathe a known very effective carcinogen, when the alternative of popping outside is available, is child abuse.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

It is. It's doors are open to the public.

You are right. Do what you like when it doesn't interfere with others.

You don't need to inhale toxic fumes to know the effects.

They do not. They bring misery.

I am not insulting.

The public inhaling toxic fumes against their will is not opinion. It is FACT.

The packs look glamorous enough.

Lots of them. Most I meet say it does no harm at all. They co,me out with crap like "my granddad chain smoked until her was 90 and was never sick", which is garbage. The addiction takes over their minds.

Reply to
IMM

True.

There is no "we". People who hold your views on banning it are in the minority. Just because someone doesn't smoke, it doesn't mean that they are of the same opinions as you.

F.

Reply to
Fraser

I fully agree! If someone injected heroin into their kids they would be jailed. People who smoke in front of children should be prosecuted.

Reply to
IMM

......our resident clown says.....

Well you all read it.

Reply to
IMM

You have some mighty strange mental associations with the word "freedom". What you describe above has nothing to do with freedom. Look it up in a dictionary.

You truely are an uneducated moron. Anyone with a basic inkling of world politics knows what "freedom" means to Americans. It means what ever the leadership wants them to believe, to start whatever conflict they feel is neccessary at that time. It means nothing to do with personal freedom, of which the Americans have relatively little (compared to the rest of the free world). You can't even critise the government publicly without a note going down on the Total Information Awareness databases. That's hardly free. E-mails and phone calls are routinely monitored by real systems like Echelon. Protests, like the one in London last week, aren't allowed. They set up special "free-speach zones", away from whatever they are protesting. Don't agree, they'll get the tear gas out.

And don't get me started on what "democracy" means the west. A choice every five years between two viable choices isn't democracy.

Anyone who looks to America for the definitions of Freedom and Democracy is deluding themselves.

F.

Reply to
Fraser

In actual fact, alcohol probably causes far more damage to the UK. Ask any accident and emergency doctor, or the police. Or take a look at the stats.

The vast majority of assaults, GBH, murders, rapes and domestic abuse involve alcohol. Here they have just passed a law banning late-night takeaways from selling any drink in a glass bottle because of the dangers of drunken yobs.

If you really were to push me to a choice, I'd say we'd be better off banning alcohol in public places. Far better for the UK as a whole. But, I'm not a facist bigoted fool, so I won't be pushing for that!

F.

Reply to
Fraser

Actually, most polls show a majority for banning smoking in restaurants. Some even show majorities for banning in pubs.

Christian.

Reply to
Christian McArdle

Public is an adjective, not a noun. One of the things they teach you at snotty unis. Or suaully one of the things you have to know before they let you in.

(a) They are not. Any more than any other commerciasl institution's doors are freely open to the public. My garden, by the same token is freely open to the publoic, but you had better not look too much like a rabbit if you wander in, or there will be an understandable mistake...

(b) Even if they are that doesn't make it a public place. See legal definitions.

I think a little grammatical study will show that what one assumes you meant is not a 'public place'

Your knowledge of Law is as slender as your grasp of grammar, and is only exceeded by your lack of knowledge of anything but glossy brochures on Combi boilers.

Why don't you stick to them instead?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Doctors do it regularly. (inject morphine into kids)

Its a good pain killer.

Parents regularly give food to their children that

in time will lead to an early death due to heart

disease and obesity.

Smoikuing is a relatively minor issue, but of course, why notr [pick omn a minority to opprress when you have screwed up the governance iof teh country and want people looking in the other direction..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

To be replaced by other nasty, but more politically acceptable, emissions (both in the exhaust and from the manufacturing of components to eliminate the emissions you are referring to...

Well I know of cases where a run away horse has either killed or seriously injured members of the public.

As for model aircraft enthusiasts, how about the fumes and noise pollution from radio controlled models ?

Reply to
Jerry.

Correction: Between NO viable choices.

Something anyone who calls themselves International Man of Mys(t)ery will have no problem doing..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

injured members of the public.

Ere. Some of us fly electric exclusively you know!

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

"Fraser" wrote | "Andy Hall" wrote | > My point was that people should not be subjected to it in confined | > public places and especially not where food and drink is served. | But a bar isn't a public place. It's owned by the landlord or the | brewery. How they do things within their doors is their choice. | Don't like it, don't go there.

Whilst customers usually have the choice, staff don't. There are (according to the radio this morning) 35 or 36 totally non-smoking pubs in Britain. Some others have non smoking rooms or areas. So if you want to work in a pub (and in a village it may be the only source of employment in the evenings for someone who has childcare responsibilities during the day) you're compelled to work in a smoky atmosphere.

I wouldn't accept a member of bar staff smoking on hygiene grounds, and if I've just spent good money on a quintuple Lagavulin I don't want any added smokiness in it from customers either.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

What are you addicted to, then?

Reply to
Dave Plowman

Judging by the rate at which pubs are closing, few actually use them regularly. Perhaps a poll of those who do would give different results. I really can't see why it's not up to the individual owner to decide if his premises are to be smoking or not. If the majority of patrons really did want non-smoking pubs etc, it would make commercial sense to do it voluntarily.

Reply to
Dave Plowman

I agree a friend is a nurse and says that saturday night is now called "fright night" and that 97% of the worse incidents are alcohol related.

And the abuse that hospital staff have to put up with is disgusting almost 100% of cases are alcohol related.

Why not ban alcohol altogether then maybe our police and hospitals can get on with the job that they are paid to do instead of them having to deal with the drunken slobs that roam our streets at night causing havoc and death to the other members of society who just want to get on with their lives.

A choice of either drunks or smokers for me the smoker would win hands down.

Reply to
zulu740

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.