Yes vote for city smoking ban.

[CHAPPERS]

Get it BANNED and out of our lifes. It is killer and costs us all a fortune in our taxes every year, never mind about all the taxes that smokers pay. If they paid for the money they cost the NHS fags would have to be 12.50 a packet.
There are no positives on smoking.

A pint or two never hurt anyone and its medically proven.

A pint or two maybe not but 10 pints and you're in business eh?

12.50 a packet? Bollocks.

''If you want to smoke, fine. Just do it outdoors-not in an enclosed area where other people don't have a choice to inhale it or not.'' - You've got a choice whether to enter a pub or not eh?

 

[Highfields Seagull]

The difference between fags and booze is the impact it can have on those around us.

If I were to choose to have 10 pints in a night, I wouldn't do this while forcing 8 pints down the nearest teetotal.

There is a no smoking pub in Headingley which does a roaring trade, and it makes a change to go to a nice pub for a few bevvies without coming home stinking like an ashtray.

I'm completely in favour of a ban in enclosed public spaces.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Man has 10 pints, man gets angry, man smashes you in face.

Impact.

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Man has 10 pints, man gets angry, man smashes you in face.

Impact.

In my experience that has more to do with the man being a complete wanker anyway, but fuelled by the beer.

Excellent - a new popular policy - ban wankers from public places.

 

[caz99]

A pint or two maybe not but 10 pints and you're in business eh?

12.50 a packet? Bollocks.

''If you want to smoke, fine. Just do it outdoors-not in an enclosed area where other people don't have a choice to inhale it or not.'' - You've got a choice whether to enter a pub or not eh?

so if you dont like smoking it means that you should not enter pubs to have a drink? because they should solely be for people that smoke? i think the revenue would be down just as much as if smoking was banned in pubs

 

[CHAPPERS]

so if you dont like smoking it means that you should not enter pubs to have a drink? because they should solely be for people that smoke?

NO. I think landlords should be able to decide, a blanket ban is bullshit. If a landlord is happy to let people smoke in his pub and suffer loss of revenue from those that may not want to go into a smokey pub then surely that is fine? Then everyone who doesn't want to breathe in smoke can go to Wetherspoons or some other characterless boozer to enjoy a drink.

This country is going down the f***ing toilet.

 

[beorhthelm]

JB Mullet, there's no way the cost of smoking is more than the cost of treating the related health problems. It it did, it would be banned yesturday as the only reason consecutive governments have left it alone is the massive net income recieved.

Bwian, on the matter of choice, why do people argue this point? Since when do you have a RIGHT to go into a pub/resturant at all? Shirley if you argue you have a right to go into a pub and not be subjected to smoke, then smokers should have the right to go into a pub and smoke? therefore, the only sensible regulation is some middle ground ie decent ventilation and designated areas.

 

[Trufflehound]

"Yes vote for city smoking ban?"

Why should we care what Rick Wakeman and Jon Anderson do these days?
.
.
.
.
Good decision though.

 

[caz99]

NO. I think landlords should be able to decide, a blanket ban is bullshit. If a landlord is happy to let people smoke in his pub and suffer loss of revenue from those that may not want to go into a smokey pub then surely that is fine? Then everyone who doesn't want to breathe in smoke can go to Wetherspoons or some other characterless boozer to enjoy a drink.

This country is going down the f***ing toilet.

yes but your still saying that people who smoke should have the upper hand ie non smokers go to the crappy pubs.

surely it should be even stevens for everyone

 

[Bluejuice]

This is an interesting one isn't it?

I'm not a smoker myself and am in fact allergic to the smoke so it would be in my interests if it was banned but I do feel it is a freedom of choice that makes us seem a nanny state if we ban it entirely in public. At uni I knew hardly anyone who didn't smoke and from working in pubs and bars I know how commonplace it is so it is bound to have an effect on trade.

I think the emphasis should be on smoking sections rather than non-smoking sections so that people can expect a smoke-free environment unless they choose to go somewhere for smoking.

But taking the liberty away for everyone is taking people's choice away.

Better ventilation and more choice for non-smokers sounds a far better option

 

[CHAPPERS]

yes but your still saying that people who smoke should have the upper hand ie non smokers go to the crappy pubs.

surely it should be even stevens for everyone

And what makes those pubs that have controls or smoking crappy?

The fact that people are told what they acn't and can't do. ie the loss of freedom. If you want that then fair enough.

 

[fatbadger]

The day that the anti-smoking brigade start arguing for the banning of cars because of the proven damage to the health of those who are forced to breathe in the disgusting fumes they emit, I will stop considering them a bunch of f***ing hypocrites.

 

[Meade's Ball]

NO. I think landlords should be able to decide, a blanket ban is bullshit. If a landlord is happy to let people smoke in his pub and suffer loss of revenue from those that may not want to go into a smokey pub then surely that is fine? Then everyone who doesn't want to breathe in smoke can go to Wetherspoons or some other characterless boozer to enjoy a drink.

This country is going down the f***ing toilet.

I'm not leaving my health choices up to landlords. Bloody hell.

I smoke, but i don't mind it being banned. Your arguments about smokeless somehow being soulless is shite. Smoke doesn't make a place. And your personal freedom is NOT as important as the health of those around you. It's the same stupid arguments that gun-lovers make in the US.
Mr D. Advocate.

 

[CHAPPERS]

. And your personal freedom is NOT as important as the health of those around you. .

yes it is.


I'm gonna dress up like Bruce Willis in Braveheart and lead a army of smokers into battle.

FRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMMM

 

[Meade's Ball]

yes it is.


I'm gonna dress up like Bruce Willis in Braveheart and lead a army of smokers into battle.

FRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMMM

 

[Kev the Ape]

its up to you if you want to smoke. council can't stop you no one can.

 

[Meade's Ball]

its up to you if you want to smoke. council can't stop you no one can.

What if they confiscated your mouth and nostrils?

 

[CHAPPERS]

I'd cut hole in my throat and smoke through that.

 

[finbar]

What if they confiscated your mouth and nostrils? [/QUOTE

]

Surely there could be some sort of wierd space suit helmet type invention that instead of giving the person who wears it oxygen, its gives normal air mixed with 20% fag smoke. The smoking user simply wears it for 5 minutes and then feels better.

To top it off they could dip 2 of their fingers in yellow dye and brush their teeth with charcoal or use old sock flavoured chewing gum?

 

[Meade's Ball]

I'd cut hole in my throat and smoke through that.

Why not just drill directly into your one shrivelled lung?