Of course. The point was really that one facility is necessary without discussion and the other isn't at all
The trouble is that if one is in a strange place, this can involve a lot of running around to find the desired type of venue.
That is true, although again when one isn't at home one is forced to eat and drink in such places.
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.
Mheh. Last time I went abroad (a couple of years ago), we departed from Gatwick. The last time before that I had gone there were smoking areas upstairs, but these had now been replaced with a sort of large cubicle walled-off from the other waiting area, slap bang in the middle in public view. I am really terrified of flying and and we had to wait an extra six hours for the flight as it was delayed, so I gave in a went off the the 'cubicle' for a smoke to calm me nerves - I have never felt so self-conscious in my life! There were no seats so people were just standing there, in the middle of Gatwick waiting lounge, chuffing away, like cattle in a shed or something, Also the shed was not bif enough so the smokers were falling out of the doorways trying to stay within the area. With the glassy walls, everyone could look on like you were some kind of freak, and I'm sure we certainly looked like freaks. I don't know if humiliation is part of the 'treatment' but it worked for me - I made sure I never went back there again!
NB - the shed didn't even work - it didn't have a roof on as far as I can recall, so the smoke just wafted around the rest of the concours!
Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that way. The fact is, jackboots were used to override the free market
Not certain, but I think the gum is designed to be chewed regularly to maintain nicotine levels in the body and smoking as well as chewing the gum would probably result in a nicotine overdose - the gel is designed to replace smoking for a short period of time. Other than that, there isn't any difference AFAIK. I suspect the health lobby likes gum because it is a tool for giving up, but hates the gel because it is a temporary tool for getting through one evening without a smoke.
Indeed, but the stated reasons for outlawing smoking in public places was in order to prevent people from being exposed to second-hand smoke. If they had publicly stated that it was because they just want to control what people choose to put in their own bodies, it would not have had half the support because people do not like to be dicated to by the state.
I notice the OP didnt respond regarding percentage return. This really is the key to deciding whether it can be made to work or not. Of course I'm not denying the other skills aslo needed, both general business and the property & landlord specific ones.
Return wise, a key real q is can the buyer make it through a patch of high interest rates and mediocre returns. Buying a house is a long term deal, one has to be able to stick with it long term, else there isnt going to be a gain, just a lot of costs. Its very hard to make btl add up today.
Go where? Pubs? Pubs are for consuming alcohol not inhaling toxic fumes. I have the right to go into any public place and not be exposed to toxic fumes.
People should expect a safe and hygenic envirnoment. Just because in the past, this was overlooked and not taken into account does not mean it was right. Things like inflicting toxic substances upon people because it became common practice for the recipient to have to just shut up and bear it or not bother applying for those jobs in that environment didn't make it correct.
It's like saying to the bloke who falls off a crane or scaffolding, well you knew it was going to be high up and there was a risk. All aspects of H&S have to accounted for employees and customers. I would stand well away from the man or woman who was blissfully unaware that whilst they looked one way, daydreaming into thin air, they were in fact pointing their ciggie in my direction where the smoke merrily drifted well away from them down the bar to me.
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.
Matches light ciggies too, so even worse.
SMOKING IS BANNED!!! At last!!! LIVE WITH IT AND SHUT UP!!!!
It cost the NHS twice as much to treat alcohol related accidents as it does to treat smoking related diesease - and the latter has a very 'wide' definition these days within the NHS e.g. anything they might possibly connect with smoking.
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.
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.
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, but there is the issue of finding them and the practicalities of operation. Who decides on which is which? Do the licensors play Solomon?
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.
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.
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.
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.