I've skimmed through this thread and all I see if you asking us for money on every post - What is this, links for sale? Canny get a scam goin on the new boards now unlike the old for sale days. Fags kill you nutter!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepalese black
I think all this effort should be used to get weed legal - tobacco doesnt deserve any money being spent on it - and i used to be a 40 a day./
Now that tobacco is effectively illegal in public places (except when there is clear sky above you i.e. no roof ) does anyone in their right mind think that the government is actually going to overturn an existing law and legalise weed .... not a fu"*in chance . We needed tobacco out in the open to use as a yardstick to point out the relative harmlessness of MJ in comparison to tobacco.I also think that some of you are missing the point ,no one is actually bigging up cigs it,s the freedom of choice that,s being fought for,anyway i could go on for ages about the civil liberty issues but i'll be going over things i've posted before.One last point,my grandfather survived the D-day landings and since my grandmother died does not have much of a life apart from going to his local working mens club 3 times a week for a few pints and cigs, as of July 1st this will no longer be possible due to the ban and to think this gentleman put his life on the line in the name of democracy.
I've been smoking for over twenty years now. I don't smoke around non-smokers any more and go outside to smoke at home. I absolutely support the ban on smoking in public places, smokers have a right to damage their own health, if they still want the nicotine in public they can chew gum or put on patches.
I don't think that legalisation of weed is remotely likely for the forseable future in the UK. If it ever does happen though, a public smoking ban would be essential. I don't want to be wandering around the town centre with my family with idiots smoking weed on every corner trying to steer them away from the clouds of smoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
If any kind of smoking was allowed in public places and cannabis was decriminalised, this would happen.
Too true I am afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode
In the summer my local pub is like an Amsterdam Coffee Garden. Landlord does not mind though he sells a lot of food.
I enjoy guns always have done but my freedom of choice is restricted to where I can use them.
I also enjoy scratching my arse but would you want me doing it in front of you as you are having lunch in a resturant.
QUOTE
" if you have a problem with smoking then dont sit next to a person that smokes simple as that"
Does that apply to my statement "If you dont want to get shot then dont come near me when I have a gun"
Cheers NCM
PS Right, I am off to vote now,
Licensed premises a'la pubs/clubs for consumption of tobacco and cannabis related products keeping smokers off the streets out of view of the kids.We banned tobacco advertising so as not to influence children but come July kids will see adults smoking more than ever before due to smokers being forced on to the streets as they have no where else to go . My next point is this...i do not have a car ( by choice ) but my next door neighbour has three (one a 4x4 ) when they get into their cars i don't mouth off about my right to clean air ( incidentally pollution induced asthma in children is higher than ever and still rising) no i go my way realising that in a supposed democracy we all have freedom of choice (apparently) some might say a tenuous argument but to me a very valid one none the less. And one final point , the smoking ban will not cover everywhere as the houses of parliament will not come under this ban, yes the only ones who will be able to smoke in licensed premises will be the people who passed this legislation in the first place , how's that for bigotry. I agree with some of you on one point and that is i also do not see decriminalisation of cannabis for a long time so it looks like we will all be skulking around in the shadows for the next 20 years.
Sounds good to me but highly unlikely to succeed as our goverment is totaly incapable of thinking sensibly, vote today to change things.
Cheers NCM
"IN MY POSTING I NOT SURE IF I MADE MYSELF CLEAR, but what we are lobbying for and taking the UK Government to court for is ??NOT? to stop the smoking ban, ??but? for an amendment, which would allow separate smoking rooms with filtration and ventilation, this is fair and non-biased,"
If pubs etc had got their arses into gear and done this already then maybe the smoking ban wouldn't have been so far reaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrewman
On the plus side nipping out the pub for a 'smoke' is now going to look for less suspicious.
There will be more risks of beers getting spiked as here in Wales you are not allowed to take the glass out with you.. there was a story recently in a pub here by me that a man went out to smoke then went back in, drank his beer, went out and fell on the floor.. police came to arrest him until later they found he was having a fit and was not drunk. He is now in intensive care.
I'm a smoker, and I totally support the ban on public smoking. There's no argument and any attempt to fight against it using human rights legislation is doomed to be an expensive failure.
The whole argument put by the OP sounds like a feeble attempt by the tobacco and alcohol industries to protect their income. The fact that the registrant of the "freedom to choose" web site has chosen to hide their identity does little to dispel this suspicion.
I think people are missing the point , the argument is not about the right to smoke in public but for designated premises to be established where like minded people can go and enjoy a cigarette/cigar/pipe and who knows maybe one day a spliff in peace and comfort ( a private smokers club if you like ). Now think about it .. is that really such a bad thing .. ?
I've just checked, and the OP was specifically talking about smoking in public bars. The legislation being passed won't stop people from smoking in private houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
Having somewhere to go to have a spliff in town wouldn't be such a bad thing, but cannabis prohibitionists seem to have the media and the politicans on their side in the UK, the press (with the exception of the Guardian) are all calling for cannabis to be re-classified as a class B. There's every chance that cannabis prohibition will be stepped up and little to no chance of legalisation in the forseable future.
Of course you will be able to smoke in private houses , the day this government starts to try and dictate what we do behind our own front doors is the day i sell up and ship out . In the next 20/30/40 years when literally 10's of millions of people are facing starvation , are on the move as refugees due to flooding , and civil unrest has broken out in ( supposedly ) democratic countries due to food and energy shortages our kids and grand kids will look back and think why weren't our parents / grandparents doing anything about it, sorry we were too busy dealing with second hand smoke . Honestly if people were as passionate about the environment as they were about banning smoking we could take some serious steps towards securing some sort of future for forthcoming generations , instead we will be seen as a laughing stock for those left picking up the pieces ( not that there will be much to laugh about by then ) . This is my last post on this subject as the words head and brick wall are starting to spring to mind ( no offence ).
As far as I know, they do tell us that we can't smoke cannabis behind our front doors. Unless they've changed the law and not told me. Bon voyage..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
So you are a Daily Mail reader ah ah enough said
This is bullshit. I'm a smoker and no I'm not looking forward to the ban but it has to be a good thing.
Hi Davadish,Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
Glad there are some here that understand, as next they will ??try? and I mean try, try and make it illegal to smoke 10 meters from any pub or public place, try and stop you smoking, fags or blow in parks, beaches or nearly anywhere that the public go, so us potheads need to stick together over this, that??s why this Government has to be stopped, as no one can dictate to me how to live my life, damn fing check.
I know we can??t do what I am about to say but feel like saying it anyway;
Lets Just ask the Judge in the JR, all we ask for is separate smoking rooms, with ventilation and filtration, in pubs and clubs, where we can smoke in piece, is this to much to ask for, for Gods sake, how can any MP and Lord be so damn selfish, spiteful, biased, childlike, non-logical, and un-professional and break their own code of practise, no wonder they get attack by terrorists, as they do not think right, the MP??s seem to make all the wrong decisions, why ??? And why are they there, are they real people or computer programs, programmed to be against the right decisions and against the people, there should be a full revolution to remove 80% of them.
And ask each and every Lord that voted against the smoking rooms why they voted against, love to have them all at the JR, and ask them that without any warning, I wonder what they would say, as they would be put on the spot.
Then state one of to other things, like all the Countries with blanket bans have higher smoking rates because of this, but Spain with a ban but not in the pubs has a lower rate of smokers.
Our main studies proving passive smoking is just about harmless.
Ventilation works.
More smoking in the homes, where the alleged passive smoking hits the children.
Pubs will stay open.
Hospitals should be receiving the 50Million that they have spent on this ban, for the people that are waiting for live threatening operations.
All I want is a happy and quite life, I did not want is this, but now I have wasted one year on my computer finding out all about the huge ridiculous conspiracy against the smokers, and am not amused, I love life love to use my computer for other things, but hardily have the time for these things now, and have put up money for the JR, when all we ask is a damned smoking room.
For Gods sake if there are any antis, anti smokers of anything, or any MP??s or Lords here reading this grow up as you antis are very odd fanatical people that need help, please you are totally wasting your life doing all this, please go away and forget all about this, and ask for a little help, as you pollute the air a Billion Billion Billion more times than I will in my whole life with my passive smoking, in lets say 4 hours travelling in your car, find a life, you have totally brainwashed yourself, you need some time away, perhaps a holiday, they say Pluto is nice this time of year, it take 9 1/2 years to get to Pluto in a spaceship, however for you people I suggest a airliner to Pluto, the trip would take no more than 800 years, and I have a funny feeling I would have kicked the habit by then, hehehe. Then we could all live happily after.[/quote]
Wayne
Yes they have changed the Cannabis Laws, it was about three years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychoticEpisode
Home Office | Cannabis reclassification
I know someone very well that was in the Drug Squad up in London, ad basically if your sitting down in public smoking blow and bothering no-one they will let you carry on, same if there are a load of you in the house smoking blow, basically they will turn a blind eye, as they don??t want to do the paper work, however it all depends on the way you look and dress.
Wayne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepalese black
Here say, not fact.
Wayne[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepalese black
Again a lot of opinion posted as fact.
Most people agree with the smoking ban. Even if passive smoking wasn't dangerous as you claim, despite the fact there are numerous reports and studies claiming otherwise people still should not have to be forced to go home with itchy eyes and smelly clothes.
Give it a few years and you will get used to it.
If ventilation works so well why didn't pubs install adequate ventilation in the first place? This could all have been avoided.
That makes about as much sense as everything else you've said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
P E don't be so touchy mate , chill out and roll one up it is after all why we are all herer in the first place lol
The I suggest you take your own advice 'cos your protest is going nowhere. Standing on the beach trying to stop the tide from coming in is not a chilled out activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
I am king Canute lol
Sorry this is fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberler
Nepalese black
What opinions that I posted do you think are not facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberle
I not think there are many that go home with itchy eyes and smelly clothes, I mean for 99.9% of non-smokers most 5 years ago before all this came up did not even care or notice that people smoked, and I can never understand the smelly cloths thing, I mean who picks up their cloths in the morning to smell them, I pick them up and just wash them because of my own body odder on them, however if you read my posts again, when we go into the court rooms against the Government, we are only after separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration.
It??s not the point in getting used to it, it??s the Government trying to do what they think is best, WHEN THEY SHOULD BE HELPING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING FOR LIVE SAVING OPERATIONS, and when they don??t know much about it, and it??s backfired in every way, over a 1000 bas shut in Ireland,
New Zealand smoke more after the ban,
Scoop: Smoking Prevalence Falling Too Slowly
Italians smoking more despite national ban,
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > World -- Italians smoking more despite national ban
Spain: Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs and there are 1/2 million less smoking;
THERE 1/2 MILLION LESS SMOKING IN SPAIN ??? WHEN ALL OTHER PLACES THE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING FAR MORE, BECAUSE SPAIN LETS YOU SMOKE IN THE BARS AND CLUBS.
Spaniards knuckle under to new smoking curbs: poll
New York has a bar smoking ban, so Smoker Numbers Rise,
Smoker Numbers Rise, but Mayor Lauds Other City Statistics - September 15, 2006 - The New York Sun
Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers after the ban,
Ireland Has Almost 20 000 More Smokers
Smoking rates up in Scotland,
Smoking ban 'a triumph of propaganda over science' says Imperial as sales and profits rise | Business | Money | Telegraph
Children are victims of smoking ban, says study
Scotsman.com News - Tobacco - Children are victims of smoking ban, says study
Children's passive smoking increases after pub bans
The Publican - number one for licensed trade news, and Proud of Pubs - Home - Children's passive smoking increases after pub bans
DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day. How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room?
Vehicular emissions have far more toxic substances then cigarettes, they are the real cause for the higher cancer rates UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females.
So we wonder why do the Government waste all these Millions on a smoking ban it??s over 50Million, when the N.H.S needs it so so bad please please please, lets help save lives and buy new machines for the Hospitals, and remember there are people out the waiting for life saving operations, and not one person can be named that has been harmed by passive smoke, and someone dieing from passive smoke is a joke, well actually it??s not, this whole political propaganda of the passive smoke is a total disgrace, when there are so many dieing around the World, with all the money that has been wasted on the passive smoke rubbish, we could most properly eradicated most of the diseases like cancer.
Departments: Advertising: 17 Apr 2007: Written answers (TheyWorkForYou.com)
That chart shows what a bloody disgrace the N.H.S is, it no wonder its going down the pan. Then spent £24,000 on advertising for new nurses and then spent £22,700,000 telling them they shouldn't smoke! ??? Please let??s stop this madness.[/quote]
Your to damn right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberler
Wayne[/quote]
All your links bar a couple are about increased smoking rates, which are down the stupidity of people smoking not the non smoking majority. We wont really know what the full effect this ban will have for a long time yet. These increased smoking rates could be a reaction to what many feel is a persecution - this is of course speculation.
If pubs and clubs were exempt then it would leave an opening for more litigation in the future as it's supposed to be protecting workers.
I consider vehicle emissions a different debate.
I think it's fair to say we are not going to agree on this one :) But I would like to have seen smoking and non smoking premises but that would have involved too much common sense for any government. Smoking pubs would then have been ideal places to start the sale of cannabis I'm just dreaming now :P
Did you notice the Spanish link and what happened there. However all over the World there has been the natural decline in the smoking preference, but the bans stop this and but them in reverse, and I have showed the Government this and they still will not admit they are wrong this is what gets me.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberler
Here is the Irish chart; the ban stated on 3/04 the percentage of smokers was 23.1 now over three years later it??s 25.5, and notice before the ban it had a natural decline.
And look what has happened in Northan Ireland in a few weeks;
Smoking outside ain't no drag for 'smirters' - News - Sunday Life
[/quote]
The thing is that all the real studies from, HSE, WHO, BMJ, and the Cancer Society themselves say there is hardly any harm in SHS, actually milk has a slightly higher rating then SHS, they have based this ban on estimates, and a report that??s called the SCOTH Report, we call the SCOTH Fable, and some of it??s members are also members of ASH, which are anti smoking, I have now found out that the Welsh Assembly, which we call ASS and the DOH, don??t even have 83 of the studies I asked them for, which are in the SCOTH Fable, so that means that no one has actually read the so called studies, as the immortal Rigsby once said, stop the World I want to get off.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberler
By the way when I win the Euro Lotto, guess what I am going to buy ??? An Island, and with me being Emperor, King and Government, guess what will be legal ??? hehehe, and guess what your all welcome. [/quote]
Yes they are different, they are a Billion times worst, only thing is you can??t see them, but you can see Tobacco smoke, and 99% of that is water.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberler
DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day. How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room? [/quote]
Well we do agree on the separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration, and that all we want. Yes when we go to the courts against the Government in the Judicial Review that is all we ask them for separate smoking rooms with ventilation and filtration.Quote:
Originally Posted by amberler
I have a sneaky feeling that 80% of the Government are computer programs, there to make the wrong decision and to wind us up, the Government must be intelligent people, I mean they can all get A+ in maths and English and know how to write a formal letter and all that crap, but have they the common sense and the street wise, no they have not. [/quote]
All we want is the Freedom To Choose
Nepalese black
DD, do a lil research... its not Global warming, its SOLAR warming :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
Anyway, as if the police will have enough time to book everyone who smokes in public after the ban. I for one will still smoke outside, and if the cops want to arrest me, then fine, but Im not giving up MY liberties and MY freedoms just over a damn cigarette. If im out smoking and I see a mother with her child in a buggy or walking next to her, I wait until theyve gone past until I carry on smoking. Its a little bit of common fucking sense that saves the day.
we quibble over terms , i think we all agree the planet is warming up yes ? and i know that the earth has it's own natural climate cycles , ice-ages , shifting of polar ice caps , movement of deserts that kind of thing and these cycles will be constant regardless of our existence or not due to the sun and solar activity , but solid scientific study has shown that man-made Co2 emission levels are inexorably linked to this sudden sharp rise in global temperatures even factoring in solar activity such as flares or sunspots and even the sun reversing it's magnetism.So global or solar it looks like the s"*t's gonna hit the fan unless we act now and start reducing emissions, carbon footprint and all that. I think this should be our main priority rather than banning smoking , you can still smoke in public outdoors by the way and yes a bit of common fu"*in sense can save the day . I suppose we won't look as conspicuous stood outside the pub havin a toke
my brother in law was stopping smoking and doc give him patches,so they get him in every 3 days to test and check he's not smoking,anyway,in the 10 minute walk to his docs along a main road,the doc said he'd taken in the equivalent of 6 cigs from the pollution from cars
but were all missing the point,doesn't matter if we're for or against the ban,we're being told what to fuckin do,and our opinions were never sought,so where does it end?sounds like good beginnings to a dictatorship
I Think We ALL Should Give Up Smoking And Then We Would See The Goverment Asking Us to Start Smoking Because Of All The Money They Get From The Manufactures And If No One Smoke Then They Wouldn't Get Any So Let's Fuck The Goverment Everyone Stop Smoking?
A slow but steady erosion of our civil liberties , democracy my fu"*ing arse , mind you the word democracy seems to have taken on sinister overtones the way Bush and Blair banter it about , and you are right there will be shortfall in revenue as tobacco is heavily taxed ( £5 pack of cigs about £4.30-ish will go straight to the government ) and benefits to the NHS will be far from immediate. What's next the booze ?
Interesting thing there, the government is thinking about limiting the public to having 3 drinks per pub/bar, and then youre allowed no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
And my parents think Im crazy for saying that the UK is becoming more and more facist by the day!
From a health standpoint encouraging people to stop smoking is a good idea , it's just the way this legislation has been forced upon us that worries me . I couldn't agree more about the fascist state comment and was not aware of the proposed drink limitations, do you have any more info on this ? and might be worth starting a thread about... nice one
The thing is this is my life not the Governments, if they want to advise me on things all well and good, but at the end of the day it??s my choose, so Mr Government, go away, and Mr Government, how fit are you ??? How healthy do you eat ??? How many times do you go to the Gym ??? You look to me that you sit in the Houses of Parliament all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divadish
I am into fitness and have a resting pulse of under 50, did have it as low as 35ish, and go to the gym about three times per week, and like to eat healthy, but one or three nights per week I love a beer or twelve and a few smokes.
The fitness part of my life is my choose, and I DON??T GO TELLING OUR PEOPLE TO DO WHAT I DO, AS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SIT ON THEIR ASS ALL DAY THAT??S FINE BY ME, AS IT??S THEIR LIFE.[/quote]
Three drinks and you're out: the pub rationing plan-News-UK-TimesOnline
Three drinks and you're out: the pub rationing plan
Marc Horne
ONE of Britain??s leading surgeons has called on the government to introduce curbs on the sale of alcohol, limiting the amount that customers can consume per visit to a pub or bar.
John Smith, president of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, believes that such restrictions would be the logical next step to improving the nation??s health following the ban on smoking in public buildings.
Smith believes regulations in Britain could save lives while cutting alcohol-related illnesses and violent crime.
??The legislation to ban smoking in public places is very welcome and a big step forward. The logical thing to recognise now is that smoking is bad for you, as is alcohol,? he said.
??Should we now limit the amount of drink that can be served in pubs? If, as a nation, we are serious about trying to prevent illnesses associated with social habits, then this is something that must be considered seriously.
??I think for a government to follow the American model of saying, for the benefit of each patron, we will provide three drinks only, would be very interesting to look at.?
Restrictions already operate in some American states. The city council in Santa Monica, California, has powers to impose a three-drink ban in bars while voluntary schemes operate in Virginia, Oregon and Massachusetts.
Last week the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice), which advises on the cost effectiveness of providing treatment on the National Health Service, said patients who endangered their health by smoking, gross overeating or heavy drinking should be denied medical treatment.
Currently guidelines recommend that men should drink no more than four units a day, which is the equivalent of two pints of beer, two glasses of wine or four measures of spirits. Women are advised to drink no more than three units.
Smith, who hopes his views will become the college??s policy, said that it was up to ministers to decide on the practicalities of a ban.
??I realise that not everyone is likely to agree with this and there will be those who will claim it would be another example of the nanny state,? he said.
??I also realise that the implications commercially for hotels and publicans would be huge, because we all know that they make a lot of their money through mark-ups on drink. But it is the logical follow-up to banning smoking in pubs and other public places. As a wine lover I would be prepared to lead by example.?
Professor Roger Williams, the consultant surgeon who operated on George Best, the footballer who died last month after years of alcohol-related illnesses and a liver transplant, said that he supported Smith in principle.
??I am in favour of anything that will restrict the availability of alcohol to people, thereby the amount they drink,? said Williams.
??I would doubt that it is a practical measure, but it reinforces the need to restrict alcohol, rather than make it more freely available.?
He added that other measures to cut drinking could include giving clear information on the number of units of alcohol in each drink and increasing taxes. ??Any suggestions to reduce alcohol intake are good,? he said.
Professor Ian Gilmore, chairman of the Royal College of Physicians?? alcohol committee, said: ??Not allowing people to consume more than three drinks in a pub is a wonderful solution if it was practical. We need to change our culture. At the moment we don??t understand why we??ve got the situation we have.?
Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said such a ban would be unworkable.
??One thing I found during the smoking debate was that some of the medical profession lack common sense when it comes to dealing with real issues in the real world,? he said.
??The idea of restricting the number of drinks is unworkable, impractical and would erode personal freedoms.?
Wayne[qoute]
Here we go again , just another example of the government trying to run every aspect of our lives, it pisses me off so much that they bring in these legislations in our "own best interests". F"*k that , i want the right to choose.Regarding the comment made by N.I.C.E. , if as they say treatment was to be withheld to certain groups in society then one would assume that these people would then have the option of opting out of national insurance contributions.Further to the N.I.C.E. comments,where does one draw the line on who has what treatments ? ,people involved in accidents whilst speeding,people injured or harmed whilst drunk,extreme sports participants.Would it be a case of wherever someone has put themselves (knowingly)in a hazardous situation and come to harm they would be denied treatment ?This country is becoming so fu"*ed up it's unreal
You guys understand your still allowed to smoke right?