He was on about toxic smoke causing the cough. Please read again.
He was on about toxic smoke causing the cough. Please read again.
Please eff off as you are vacant in the head.
The will was never there. It's a witch hunt pure and simple
Spot on Stuart.
Thanks yes I have calculated that I can withstand an interest rate rise to 7.5% without any income from the property any higher then this and im close to losing my shirt. I still remember the problems my parents had when interests rates rocketed to over 15% my prime concern was how the recent US subprime problems would effect the UK economy short term as this is the period when I will be most vulnerable. Im also all too aware that no investment is risk free a friend of my father was a Lloyds outside Name Look were that got him
I meant the conditions within prisons. Being deprived of your liberty is of course a deterrent.
The most effective deterrent is a certainty of being caught. This however seems to have escaped those in authority.
Any proof? It's fine having such beliefs but they need firm evidence to be in any way true. And despite more and more being sent to prison crime continues to rise.
As to having one per cell this would mean doubling - or more - the present capacity. Delivering food to cells with the prisoners confined to them - so not able to work in the kitchens etc - would need a huge increase in staff. As would cleaning etc. I don't think you've thought this one through...
Does this mean your alcoholism was caused by drinking at home?
You must eff off as you a total plantpot.
Trivially easy to demonstrate. If the smoke causes somebody to cough when they wouldn't have done so before, it's adversely affected their health. I could arrange a formal survey for this if you want - except it's a bit harder these days since the atmosphere in most public places no longer has the problem.
Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.
You seem to be desperately clinging to the idea that smoke is some wonderful benign stuff - it isn't. You've actually gone so far into that belief that you're denying the obvious - the more obvious effects of smoke have been known for ages, and even entered popular culture ("Smoke gets in your eyes").
If you weren't so blinkered, you'd have noticed I'm only arguing at the moment for the most blatently obvious effects - those which were known about well before the link to cancer was demonstrated. Yet you still insist they don't exist. Why is that? Why do you attempty to deny what is staring you in the face?
(I've normally seen you as a fairly reasonable man - but on this subject you're well off the mark.)
clive
Ah well.
All that this creates is opportunity.
There's a big difference between removing an objection to a sale and actually closing the business.
The ban makes it possible to go to said pub. It doesn't guarantee them the business. They have allowed a major deterrent to persist for decades. Now that has gone. But.... they still need to win the business.
This is why many have gone for cleaning the places up, replacing the carpets and all the rest of it.
With the right menu it would be excilerating.
Perhaps we need to reintroduce some traditional values.
Mmm... in that respect I can claim complete neutrality, never having smoked.
I am not so concerned about preventing anybody doing anything, but it is pleasurable being able to go to places to eat that were not possible before.
I think that that's rather sad.
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up choice for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't possible before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to continue to be able to go to them
There was nothing to stop a pub banning smoking before this law. Restaurants too. In fact many of the latter did.
But even when pubs were non smoking - or had non smoking bars - they were the empty ones. Like one local to me who turned the nicest and most busy bar of three in the place into a non smoking area. Afterwards it was near empty and the back bar which was usually quiet before became crowded.
I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one drug with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has been removed.
Do you really think people would go to pubs if they didn't sell alcohol? That would allow those who don't approve of it to use them too.
So the situation is
- location
- drug A = alcohol
- drug B = nicotine
Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus location in selected places provided that they were not affected by the use of drug B by users of it.
Smokers had location plus drugs A and B
now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.
Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.
Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.
that would be unlikely. They are more more likely to go to pubs now that there is no smoking. However I don't believe that pubs will lose significant trade through absence of smoking any more than I think it will increase either.
The situation is only nicotine. Alcohol has nothing whatsoever to do with nicotine addiction and poisoning.
Which really demonstrates that it's better to eliminate smoking from inside premises altogether so that the pubs can open up all of the bars and areas to all of their customers.
Not this nutball again!!!! Tory party brainwashed. Too dumb to see that the aims of that bunch of goons is totally against him.
Many pubs are doing better business since the ban. The non-smokers who liked a drink and hated the toxic substances in the air are gradually populating pubs. Pubs that sell food are increasing sales in many areas, especially those that allow children in.
Before the smoking ban came in I was seeing the odd pub around that was no smoking, and many restaurants. They were using it as a selling point. This is market forces at work.
But here's a different thought. We have a major economic problem on our hands, the Pension Crisis. Smoking is the ideal fix for this. Smokers pay lots of tax, then dies before they can claim (all) their pensions. I won't do it, but I'm more than happy for other people to smoke!
Andy
Indeed
Oh definitely. I haven't said that people should be discouraged from smoking. In fact, based on this scenario I would encourage it. However we can have the best of both worlds. They can now pickle themselves without pickling me.
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.