Taking the government to court over the smoking ban please help

[Tom Swierzbinski]

Wake up call cigarrettes cigarrettes arent killin the planet transport IS

DD, do a lil research... its not Global warming, its SOLAR warming

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.

[Divadish]

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

[atsar]

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

[DogsBollocks]

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?

[Divadish]

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 ?

[Tom Swierzbinski]

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.
And my parents think Im crazy for saying that the UK is becoming more and more facist by the day!

[Divadish]

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

[Nepalese black]

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 itâ??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.

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 DONâ??T GO TELLING OUR PEOPLE TO DO WHAT I DO, AS IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SIT ON THEIR ASS ALL DAY THATâ??S FINE BY ME, AS ITâ??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 Britainâ??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 nationâ??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.

â??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,â?� he said.

â??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.

â??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.â?�

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 collegeâ??s policy, said that it was up to ministers to decide on the practicalities of a ban.

â??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,â?� he said.

â??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.â?�

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.

â??I am in favour of anything that will restrict the availability of alcohol to people, thereby the amount they drink,â?� said Williams.

â??I would doubt that it is a practical measure, but it reinforces the need to restrict alcohol, rather than make it more freely available.â?�

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. â??Any suggestions to reduce alcohol intake are good,â?� he said.

Professor Ian Gilmore, chairman of the Royal College of Physiciansâ?? alcohol committee, said: â??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 donâ??t understand why weâ??ve got the situation we have.â?�

Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said such a ban would be unworkable.

â??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,â?� he said.

â??The idea of restricting the number of drinks is unworkable, impractical and would erode personal freedoms.â?�

Wayne[qoute]

[Divadish]

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

[B.Basher]

You guys understand your still allowed to smoke right?