What? People, you mean? Yep, I guess we should find something else to write it. Perhaps animals would provide something that you'd find more to your taste. How about laboratory beagles? They're supposed to know all about smoking aren't they?
If only you could write it all yourself. I'm sure the "fact" content would skyrocket!
Cheers,
Colin.
The point is that I could sent a complete load of bollocks to Wiki and they wouldn't care. In fact, it appears that people do.
That's exactly how Wiki works..... you don't believe most of what I post, but if it was on Wiki, it *must* be true......
*wanders off shaking head*
Hang on, let's do a "SteveH" on it...
"I am aware that the respected science journal Nature did a small survey which concluded that Wikipedia was just as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica."
There. That's better :o)
Cheers,
Colin.
'It's on the internet, so it must be true'
You've really swallowed all the propoganda.
That's the way it works, yes. And, overwhelmingly, it does work. I'm sorry you're unable to understand that. Or is it that you're choosing not to since it doesn't suit your argument?
Oops, there we go again with the making up of "facts" that never actually existed outside your own imagination. Where did I say that I trusted implicitly *anything* I read *anywhere* ?
It's just that, to be honest, Wiki doesn't really need to reach an enormously high level of credibility in order to beat you does it?
It'll take more than that to get some sense into it.
Cheers,
Colin.
Wrong Carl. that was me.
But normally in pubs, they tend to be breaded with garlic. So you would have been breathing a stink over everyone if you chose to.
It also relies on the general public to edit, alter or transform it's content beyonf recognition if necessary, so you could make a definition for white actually describe black. And as the rules of Wikkis go, that would technically truthful and accurate, even though it was the exact opposite of what every other definition of white was.
You can. Go ahead, rewrite the definition of the smoking ban to suit yourself.
But there are already laws against that, whether it be drunk & disorderly, anti-social behaviour, assault etc.
I don't entirely disagree with having a completely separate room, providing it is adequately ventillated and staff only have to go in to collect the glasses.. but not the whole pub because you have the staff to think of for the same reasons they banned smoking in the work place elsewhere.
back to the selfish old "you can always go somewhere else" argument.. why isn't it the smoker who should go elsewhere, since they are the ones doing something that causes others discomfort, not the non-smokers?
People are always worried about change when they are unsure of the effects on their business. However, it is a bit strange to think there is no market. A majority of people don't smoke as it is and that's a bigger market than the smokers. Those that don't smoke but go into pubs anyway are still going to go, some of the smokers who really can't be arsed going out into the beer garden or whatever may stop going but some of the current non-smokers who don't go to the pub because of the smoke might start going, so it's likely to even out.
In my case, I started going to a local pub that has a decent music scene going on, and also I used to go regularly to another music venue. However every time I went, for the next day or two I had an irritated throat and a cough, so after a while stopped going. When the ban comes in then it will take away the primary factor that stops me wanting to go to those places anymore :-)
Bigus
Which would prove what? That Wikipedia is fallable and, horror of horrors, written by real people? We all already know that, but that's not the point. For the sake of this particular argument, it only has to compete with SteveH in the credibility stakes.
So what about you? Pretend you know absolutely nothing about the effects of smoking bans and you are genuinely trying to find out the truth. Which would you put more faith in - SteveHs posts on this thread, with all their obvious bias and crass attempts at spin, or the Wiki article?
Cheers,
Colin.
Hang on, the top paragraph is missing an 'as' so you can't necessarily assume that your interpretation of it is right.
Roger.
I know the effect of a smoking ban. The only effect that is worth arguing about. The loss of a freedom. In the past a landlord could say get out of my bar we don't allow non smokers. Or he could say get out this is a non-smoking bar. But now, he isn't allowed to. The right to make his bar exclusively smoking has gone. The smoker isn't entitled to the same warmth as a non smoker, and thans to local byelaws in many places are now effectely forced to drink at home, and are bared from all licensed premises thanks to the fact that,
1) They can't smoke inside. 2) The club/pub rules or local byelaws make drinkig in the street illegal. 3) Drinkers are advised to not leave their drinks unattended to avoid getting them spiked.Not really very even is it.
Your failure to answer the question is quite telling. Thanks for not lying though.
Make that a gain of freedom for non-smokers.
That won't change.
That won't change either, it'll just become superfluous.
[plays mournful violin music]But at least the non-smoker is now entitled to spend money in pubs without being forcibly coated, inside and out, with noxious substances.
All of which will remain unaffected by the ban. If you don't like them, complain about them.
Of course it isn't. Smokers have been enjoying their totally legal ability to bugger up the air around them for everyone else for *far* too long. Of course it's a big deal when that "right" is taken away, just as it was when the right to keep slaves was taken away, for instance.
Cheers,
Colin.
Yes they are: if they can't handle going without a cigarette for the period of time they want to spend in a pub, and they're then too hard done by to go outside to feed their habit, that's their problem.
As I have said in here before, I don't expect anyone who smokes to appreciate how uncomfortable smoke can be for those who don't, but it is.
It's called 'consideration for others', and whilst you may well continue to argue how inconsiderate this ban is going to be for smokers, you have to bear this in mind:
Non-smokers aren't poisoning the air around you, whether you like it or not. Everyone will still be entitled to go to pubs etc., you'll just not be allowed to contaminate the air that everyone breathes, not just the smokers amongst you, any more. No-one is stopping you from having a cigarette, you're just now expected to do it away from the immediate environment of those who choose not to smoke.
HTH... make it a little clearer for you - it'll be even clearer when the air isn't filled with smoke. ;)
-- JackH
MotorsForum 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.