OT: A non-Vamp type ban

Ah, but see... you cited vehicles as a polluter as a direct comparison to a smoker - a car has a catalyst, therefore the smoker, as in the source of the pollution, also has the filtration kit fitted... :-P

-- JackH

What does it's current legality have to do with it? Slavery was completely legal before it was banned. As was forgery, murdering spouses and fiddling your electric meter.

Cheers,

Colin.

Then let's cut out the bollocks and make cigarettes illegal, then.

You're coming round :-)

Shhhhhh!

He was beginning to shut up. ;-)

-- JackH

I'm not sure I like the sound of that. Where would all the tax come from? Nah, I'm happy as long as they don't do it near me. Of course I never complain, even if they do :o)

Cheers,

Colin.

Not according to the figures I've been able to find, Smoking related deaths in England - 86500 Alcohol related deaths in England - 6150 (Figures are for 1 year)

The trouble with defining 'smoking related deaths' is that they're very non-specific.

Alcohol related death is much easier to diagnose.

That's got nothing to do with anything, smoking tax is a stupidity tax, not something that goes towards helping people smoke*.

How about, my house, my rules. Either you want my money or you don't.

Nope, they will just go out into the cold and wet, get wet, then come back into the dry pub and stand there smelling of damp as well as smoke

Get ready to man the barricades then It seems modified vehicles may need to pass SVA Type approval if they=20 are to remain legal, and then get a Q plate.

1. A rebuilt vehicle may keep its identity provided it retains enough=20 of the original components, including the unmodified or new=20 chassis/monocoque body-shell. It must also contain at least two major=20 components from the original vehicle. The major components are currently=20 considered to be the suspension (front and back), axles (both),=20 transmission, steering assembly, engine. If a second-hand or modified=20 chassis/monocoque body-shell is used, a ?Q? registration mark will be=20 issued and the vehicle will be subject to type approval."

Just remember, a modified Chassis/monocoque body-shell could equally=20 include fitting proper welding in flared wheel wells, as it involves=20 cutting the unitary body structure.

But a set of plastic extensions slapped on with some filler and a bit of=20 silicon by Neddy the Nova driver wouldn't be, yet they could and=20 probably would come loose and be thrown into the patch of another=20 vehicle or a pedestrian. The properly converted car would be penalised,=20 but the shoddily tampered with bucket of rust would be exempt.

So get ready. Nobody wants a Q plate when the car is safe, legal and of=20 definate heritage, just because the engine came out of a 1974 Escort=20 isntead of a 1946 Pop if the rest of the car has been safely updated to=20 match. But even other safety related alterations may be enough to render=20 the vehicle illegal unless it can pass SVA. Sometimes it is necessary to=20 substitute a non standard part, because there are no standard parts=20 left.

BTW, SVA would require a 1940/50/60/70's car to pass modern safety=20 standards including emissions, impact protection, corner radius of=20 protruding edges/bolts/panels etc. Something the car was never designed=20 to was, and has never been required to.

--=20 Carl Robson Car PC Build starts again.

And they don't include "drunk cut victim's throat with a broken beer bottle".

So how exactley does "close their pubs" mean pubs have become no smoking and smokes are using them smoke free?

Actually it is a tax on the sick. Addiction is an illness (whether it is tobacco, or alcohol as your legal drug of choice). You might be stupid for starting, but once you are hooked, you are ill and you are taxed for being ill.

Already going to happen in Ireland, so it shouldn't be long before it happens over here too.

Why is there a need to ban smoking in pubs, clubs and private memebers clubs (apart from the house of commons bar, where smoking will still be permitted.)? Surely it should be up to each individual place to decide whether to allow smoking or not. Unfortunately, in this day and age it appears we aren't grown up enough to allow things like that and need the government to legislate against every thing for us.

As for drinking, there might not be the health costs involved in this activity but what about related costs, such as the extra policing required over weekends, what about the increase in so called "date rape" cases brought about by alcohol, what about the rise in scirrosis of the liver amongst young women, what about the cost to the NHS of all those wheeled through A&E because of drink related incidents?

The government, and various quangos with a vested interest in banning smoking, have demonised smoking for years, and now they have achieved their goal. Do you really think they will stop at this?

The key difference is that if someone chooses to drink so much that they destroy their liver i dont have to either suffer while they do it or suffer ill health from it.