Posts by who would think

Pro-smoking website redirected to 'baccy free zone

Intellectual debate

I'm still yet to read an anti-smoking comment here that is above playground standard.

With the exception of Sarah, who now seems to appreciate the other side of the story.

Where is the scientific evidence about passive smoking harm?

Where is there a good reason for banning smoking at the expense of choice for property owners and customers?

In response to the comment about the cost of smoking to the NHS.

Sorry- wrong again.

The cost to the NHS for treated smoking related illness is quoted at £1.5 bn a year.

Tax on tobacco reaps the exchequer about £10bn.

So in effect smokers subsidise the health service. And this doesnt even include the tax paid by tobacco companies.

So Paul next time you receive free NHS treatment, thank a smoker!

pesky ethical grey areas

Easily solved:

Adopt the Spanish system where bar owners can choose to allow smoking, so long as they make it clear to customers on signage at entrances.

That way you choose to enter or go elsewhere according to your preferences.

No civil liberties impinged.

Ignorance is bliss

Sarah

Perhaps we would get along better if we had our own venues.

Can you define the noxious elements of tobacco smoke?

How do these elements exceed their workplace exposure limits as decreed by HSE?

Name one public place in UK whereby Second hand tobacco smoke exceeds these safety limits.

Let me help you here. There arent any.

What you are advocating is a smell being made a criminal offence.

This is what we have here. Why doesnt this apply to perfumes(carcinogenic). Spirits(Carcinogenic) Vehicles(in car parks, garages and other enclosed spaces(carcinogenic)? The list could go on and on.

You see its a basic fact of toxicology- The dose makes the poison.

And despite what ASH and their sponsors say(there is no safe level of SHS)it is impossible outside of a laboratory for SHS to reach hamful levels.

Judging by the above article and some of the supportive comments from what is a website for professionals, i can only assume that intelligence offers no barriers to ignorance and bigotry.

Free thinker

Sarah

How do you feel about the self-importance of anti-smokers?

Those that think that there should be no indoor hospitality for smokers.

Pubs and clubs are closing at an unprecedented rate. Where are all the non-smokers filling venues as promised by the ant-choice lobby pre-ban.

Not content with denying smokers with a comfortable public place to socialise, they dont bother to freqent these places themselves.

When they do, invariably they stick around just long enough to decide what a lovely clean environment it is in pubs now, then realise the place is empty and/or devoid of atmosphere.

The ironic thing is that the real indoor toxins remain unchecked and more able to thrive, now that ventilation systems are lying unused.

Free thinker

I must say, it always amuses me that anti-smoking comments never seem to be anything other than insulting and inane.

The assumption must be that if they attack people's characters and add the odd mention of smell here and there, they have an adequate substitute for a scientific basis and reasoned argument.

The article is refers to attacks on pro-choice advocates - not pro-smoking. Who advocate freedom for customers, businesses and workers to choose to be in a venue that allows smoking. What is wrong with that?

It has nothing to do with forcing anyone to do anything against their will, or using any illegal product.

If you dont like smoke you choose to go to a no-smoking establishment, if you dont mind or like smoke, you should be able to choose to do the opposite.

How can these options seriously be denied to anyone in a free country?!