OT: A non-Vamp type ban

Is it *all* laws that are suspended in your house, or just the ones you disapprove of? If you think your plumber is over-charging, can you slap him about a bit since he's in your kitchen? Sounds like a good idea to me, but I can't see it ever happening in the real world.

Cheers,

Colin.

You've never suffered from some drunk in a pub? Or on the streets? You must lead a sheltered life.

Pubs should be allowed to have smoking and non smoking bars or decide on being totally either. You're not *forced* to use a pub where smoking is allowed, and if their was a real demand for non smoking pubs they'd have been common through market forces.

Given this is a car group, you'd ban all vehicles from towns too? There are plenty who live in them but don't own a car - but have to put up with the various types of noxious gasses they produce too...

It obviously doesn't. You've quoted SteveH out-of-context and fallen right into his trap.

If you translate his post into english from it's current twisted-factish, you'll find that what he actually said was that only a few pubs in isolated areas closed, and blamed their closure on the ban. The rest have gone no-smoking just as I said.

I've no Idea which version is nearer to the truth really, but I know which one my money would be on.

Most changes in legislation have winners and losers. The few smokers who have given-up going to the pub will have found something else to spend their beer-money on. It's a cruel world.

Cheers,

Coin.

The only pubs in Ireland who've remained unaffected by the ban are those in Dublin. Elsewhere, pubs are going out of business as people are now drinking in each other's houses where they can smoke, rather than go down the pub. This has also resulted in an increase in the number of drunk drivers on rural Irish roads.

Well, you've finally gone and done it. You've goaded me into actually opening up a browser and trying to find a balanced view - not that I would consider the wealth of bollo... erm... information you've provided us with to be anything other than totally balanced, of course ;o)

This seems quite reasonable.

Colin.

I'll make this easy for you:

'However, public opinion polls cannot be considered totally conclusive. For as many businesses (particularly bars for adults 21 and over) that have found their businesses have remained relatively stable, there are many bars that have endured immediate financial hardships leading to reductions in waitstaff and entertainment offerings.'

So, in summary, some places have more customers but there's also at least an equal proportion that have suffered at the hands of a ban.

There's also statistical evidence that passive smoking is less likely to cause cancer than eating mushrooms.

To quote what I think Carl Gibbs posted elsewhere:

'When they came for the gypsies, I didn't care as I wasn't a gypsy'.

Often. But thats already iligal isnt it... And I always found drunks easy to tidy up anyway.

So you'd be quite happy if your chosen 'local' closed because of the smoking ban?

Your point is?

Good. As long as they are not bothering the rest of the non stinky population.

where they can smoke, rather than go

Which is already against the law.

Well no. But the amount of pubs that actually have closed due to this is extremely debatable. The ones that "claimed" this was the (a) cause were probable almost devoid of buisiness anyway. In which case it makes no difference.

The fact that some smokers choose to drink and drive is / was already iligal. Maybe smokers should be shot as well!

But again, mushrooms dont cause everyone elses clothes and skin to stink do they.

Oh dear.

You seem to have taken the nice, balanced view I gave you, lost all the bits that don't support your argument, and then posted the, very small, remainder.

Were you hoping, perhaps, that people reading this might be stupid enough to think your little summing-up actually reflects the tone of the article?

I'd guess you've under-estimated your readers (If there still are any) very, very badly. Now everyone knows exactly how much they can trust anything you say.

It's my fault. I suppose I should't have expected any better.

Cheers,

Colin.

The problem with your link is that the only unbiased paragraph in it was that the only balanced statement was the one I posted.

Last time I was in a pub, I was able to choose whether or not I ate mushrooms anyway.

Cheers,

Colin.

And again, in English.

The problem with your link is that the only unbiased paragraph in it was the one I posted.

You'll pardon me if I prefer to give Wikipedia a little more credibility than I do you. No offence or anything ;o)

Cheers,

Colin.

But I think he's wrong.

cheers, clive

Wiki is a resource that relies on the general public to provide it with content, it can't be relied on for any researched and factual info.

HTH.