|
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes On 28/08/2011 19:01, dennis@home wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Peter James wrote: Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in the world will do. How about Roy Castle a man who died from lung cancer and who never smoked. Said he picked up the disease from the night clubs he worked in and where smoking was rampant. For further information see the following URL's. One swallow - even with a famous name - does not a summer make. And even if it did, there's a very big difference between working all your life in smoky rooms and having neighbours who smoke outdoors. that's true.. you can choose not to go into smoke filled rooms. in the other case they are taking away your freedom. What about the freedom of smokers to go into smoke filled rooms? There should be no more publicly accessible smoke filled rooms Or is 'freedom' a one way street? Yeah - good, isn't it -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes Whose choice is more important? The drug addict's or the clean living person's? Both. But the anti smoking fascists removed choice from the equation. You do have a choice don't smoke in public places or get arrested |Lets use a gun analogy do you see it as everyone's personal right to carry a firearm? -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes On 29/08/2011 13:06, Interloper wrote: "Hugh - Was Invisible" observed: "The Medway Handyman" wrote: You being their undisputed king ****wit. TMH. Get your head out of the sand. You are making yourself look a complete idiot. Yes indeed! Most people are good at something :-) Where did you take your degree in higher stupidity? Just a minute you spend how much a week on a habit that seriously damages your health and has no real benefit who are you calling stupid? -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , Fuschia wrote: It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting they are too weak minded to give it up. Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy. 'Kin prosit, mate So, are you an addict or not ? -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes In article , Steve Walker wrote: Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic? It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted. The difference is that smoking is highly addictive (any regular smoker that stops will experience cravings/withdrawal symptoms); serves no useful purpose and is afflicted on averyone around. The same can be thought of alcohol if you co to many town centres of an evening. Drinking is far less addictive (those who succumb generally have addictive personalities anyway and can become addicted to a whole range of things - even exercise - the rest suffer no effects on doing without); Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use and turn it to others. So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close proximity in the same way that smoke does? in small quantities it can have health benefits and certainly does no harm; You'll find plenty of 'authorities' who disagree with this statement: likely just as many as on passive smoking. it's only afflicted on those around by those who overindulge - which we do have laws against, but somehow fail to enforce. Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted. Well, absolutely I'm not that fussed about the smoke - any damage is already done good fun to wind up though -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote: On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote: wrote: On 2011-08-28, Steve wrote: The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me. They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters. Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke? The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work could be that long: Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
Tim Streater wrote:
I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food. Well you could get ****ed in it. Why would you want to get ****ed - unless you're a ****-artist. Getting legless is something everybody should do once, but beyond that it just ****es birds off. The women are usually worse than the men when it comes to getting ****ed. -- Adam |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/2011 07:50, charles wrote:
In , The Medway Handyman wrote: On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote: wrote: On 2011-08-28, Steve wrote: The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me. They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters. Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke? The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work could be that long: Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes. You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until he/she finishes their cigarette. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/2011 6:02 PM, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 30/08/2011 07:50, charles wrote: In , The Medway Handyman wrote: On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote: wrote: On 2011-08-28, Steve wrote: The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me. They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters. Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke? The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work could be that long: Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes. You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until he/she finishes their cigarette. S/he also forget to wash hands. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"Judith" ranted:
Another ****wit jumping to wrong conclusions. You are Mrs Medway Handyman and I claim my £5. Or maybe you just use the same scriptwriter. -- Interloper |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote: I think it would make sense to legalize cocaine and ban tobacco. Smokers could then switch and become coke-heads. Cocaine is both less harmful to the user and harmless to bystanders. I'd suggest you do some research before writing such crap. Cocaine does an incredible amount of damage to the body and mind. As can alcohol. The safest of all the common drugs as regards physical damage is heroin. But I'm not advocating using it or any other drug. -- *Fax is stronger than fiction * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
geoff wrote: Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use and turn it to others. So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close proximity in the same way that smoke does? It's a different drug and effects others in a different way. Never been in a restaurant next to a table full of rowdies? -- *Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
Hugh - Was Invisible wrote: The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work could be that long: Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes. You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until he/she finishes their cigarette. Indeed. And frequently talk about work. So work may not actually stop with a fag break - or any other sort of break. Unless your job is sticking wheels on a car in a factory. In which case you'll not be allowed fag breaks. Only designated breaks that all get. It was so in my job. Could only take a break when it was possible work wise. Not just to suit myself. Not every one works in a poorly supervised office, etc. -- *Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 2011-08-30, charles wrote:
In article , The Medway Handyman wrote: On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote: Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke? The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work could be that long: Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes. It seems a bit unfair to count "go[ing] to toilet", since all employees do that anyway; if anything, combining the toilet & smoking breaks is probably a bit more efficient than making separate trips. ;-) Anyway, the OP didn't ask how to make his neighbours stop smoking, or even stop smoking in their garden --- just how to keep the smoke/smell away from him & his family in their own garden. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 2011-08-29, Steve Firth wrote:
Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour to go and stand outside and read a paper/chat with my mates/stare at girls as the smokers appear to have free licence to do, or failing that to get paid 30% more per day than the smokers. The addicts of course claim that they do just as much work as the non-addicts but don't seem to able to explain how they make up their absences. The difficult thing is that my libertarian leaning side says it's their body they can abuse it as they wish, but another part of me says: a) As long as they don't impact on my health/sensibility. b) As long as they get their "fix" entirely in their own time. As far as (b) goes, in a work environment smokers should clock in/out for all tobacco breaks. I still find the stench of working next to a smoker unacceptable, but it seems that not much can be done about that, although workers with BO are told by their superiors to clean themselves up. An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want, and prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere; *some* libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes) |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
mike wrote: It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David Icke's alien lizards. Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension! The trolls on this thread are far less amusing. Regards, A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Aug 30, 12:10*am, Jon wrote:
On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote: In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced" than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent? Do I really need to explain that to you? Jon You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors, mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence. It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?) It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that any contrary view is "hysteria". It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David Icke's alien lizards. Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced. I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking. No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti- evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place? So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer" Gary Glitter. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "ARWadsworth" wrote: Tim Streater wrote: I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food. Well you could get ****ed in it. Why would you want to get ****ed - unless you're a ****-artist. Getting legless is something everybody should do once, but beyond that it just ****es birds off. The women are usually worse than the men when it comes to getting ****ed. These days, yes. The answer is to find a better class of bird. You mean one that gets ****ed on champagne? -- Adam |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas. So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an air supply? And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this? There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Aug 30, 1:39*am, geoff wrote:
In message , mike writesOn Aug 28, 12:40 am, Jon wrote: For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State" It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file: Jon In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced" than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent? Not read it but ... I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions. If you've not read it, you're "peddling assumptions" and you should read it for the "real facts". Or for the insight into delusion or maybe just the lulz. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message ... 8 Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke? Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists. And by addicted handymen. Who said it was one fag and one break? They used to take two or three an hour in some departments. Now we are down to they smoked it in only two minutes, how the hell did they manage that? |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message ... Passive smoking has never killed anyone. You can repeat that as many times as you like, it just proves that you don't have a clue. At least when you were claiming it hadn't kill insert name it was impossible to prove but to claim anyone just shows you don't understand epidemiology. You could have claimed smoking never killed insert name and it would have been hard to disprove but epidemiology shows that smoking does kill people, the same as it shows secondary smoking does. Now go and cut someone's grass and stop making stupid statements. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
dennis@home wrote: Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas. So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an air supply? Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area? And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this? Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's play area... There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction. Do get a life, Dennis. -- *Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
dennis@home wrote: Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke? Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists. And by addicted handymen. Who said it was one fag and one break? They used to take two or three an hour in some departments. I hope that organisation went bust - through bad management. Perhaps it was a government one? Now we are down to they smoked it in only two minutes, how the hell did they manage that? In English? -- *Acupuncture is a jab well done* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas. In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of the work being done. If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no way at all to the success of the organisation? If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity, where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes. And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is. No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up. Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"Adam Funk" wrote in message ... An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want, Marconi banned smoking well before the smoking ban was made law (probably 5-10 years before). Only a very small number of fool^W people smoked (less than 2%, must be something to do with intelligence?) and it was annoying the hell out of the rest of us so we pressured management to ban it or to put them elsewhere. and prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere; A no smoking clause was added to the contracts of new employees. *some* libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes) |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 29/08/11 23:22, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Even more enlightening to learn how extreme rabid anti smoking fascists can be in the persecution of a minority. Paranoia. That's another thing triggered by the perceived threat of addiction withdrawal. People are not persecuting you. They just want to lead their lives quite happily away from the stench and risk associated with your smoke. That is not persecution. People around you shouldn't know or care that you smoke, unless you tell them. The problem is that symptoms of addiction make it quite obvious and can make you an unpleasant person to be around - just like with alcohol addiction. Aside from the addiction symptoms smoking is physically unpleasant in and of itself. So you're free to indulge in your addiction. Do it on your own or with other smokers and no-one will mind, you're not bothering anyone. But don't be under the illusion that others should make efforts to accommodate you or accommodate the unpleasant smells and side effects of the addiction. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 29/08/11 23:20, The Medway Handyman wrote:
And thats not what I was talking about idiot. Smoking has been demonised by the health police - fact. With good reason..., just like drink driving and obesity and... Alcohol is next on their lists - fact. Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation without affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote: On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas. In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of the work being done. As they could also be, in a pub, etc. If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no way at all to the success of the organisation? Exactly the same applies to tea breaks, etc. Just as well you're not an employer. If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity, where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes. Great. You'd have done well as an employer a couple of centuries ago. And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is. See above. And above. No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up. See above. And above. And above. Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right. Studied addiction, have you? Perhaps you should. -- *Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote: Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation without affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted. Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it? -- *Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/11 14:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , wrote: On 30/08/11 00:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas. In that situation it is essential, as those dangerous gases are part of the work being done. As they could also be, in a pub, etc. If I were an employer (and I'm not) why should I spend hard-to-come-by funds on facilities for smokers, when them smoking contributes in no way at all to the success of the organisation? Exactly the same applies to tea breaks, etc. Just as well you're not an employer. Actually no it doesn't. Asides from being a legal requirement, break times and recuperation time are a vital part of making sure staff are happy and well motivated. But if anything, providing *extra* facilities just for smokers can actually demotivate non-smoking staff (I've seen the staff surveys that prove it). If I was to give money away it would be better to donate it to charity, where it would be beneficial to worthwhile causes. Great. You'd have done well as an employer a couple of centuries ago. Plenty of modern large firms have altruistic and philanthropic activities, some of them even going so far as to have whole departments that deal with it. And if those smokers can't do a decent days work without needing to go outside for cigarettes for more breaktime than a non-smoker needs, then they're not fit for the job and I would replace them with someone who is. See above. And above. Sorry but I don't follow. Person A (non smoker) is happy and gets x amount of breaktime at work. Person B (smoker) is happy and gets x amount of breaktime at work. Person C (smoker) can't function unless they get x amount of breaktime plus an additional amount so they can regularly smoke. Sorry, but which employer in their right mind would choose person C over A or B? No objection whatsoever if someone wants to smoke. But like any other addiction when it starts to affect people around them or prevents them from doing their job then it has gone too far and they need to wise up. See above. And above. And above. Sorry, but see what above? Like any addict, though, they can't accept any of this. Their minds are closed to all reason. Woe betide anyone who gets in the way or suggests the addict is wrong. They find anyway possible to justify to themselves and others that to be addicted is normal and is their right. Studied addiction, have you? Perhaps you should. I have studied related areas of psychological and motivational theory at postgraduate level. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/11 14:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , wrote: Undoubtedly. But unlike smoking, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation without affecting anyone else, and without becoming addicted. Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it? It is so easy to become chemically addicted to nicotine that anyone who smokes more than a few cigarettes for a short period of time undoubtedly *is* addicted. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's play area... I have noticed that certain parts of London that used to be vibrant are now littered with empty gastro pubs. Bloody depressing to the casual observer |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
funkyoldcortina wrote: Where did you get the idea that *all* smokers are addicted to it? It is so easy to become chemically addicted to nicotine that anyone who smokes more than a few cigarettes for a short period of time undoubtedly *is* addicted. That doesn't mean they *have* to smoke every 15 minutes as you imply. I've never been able to smoke at my actual work and it's never bothered me. In exactly the same way as plenty enjoy their alcohol but can wait until after work before indulging. -- *Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In article ,
stuart noble wrote: Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's play area... I have noticed that certain parts of London that used to be vibrant are now littered with empty gastro pubs. Bloody depressing to the casual observer A rare event round here. A pub close to Clapham Junction - The Plough - closed some time ago and was demolished. The site sat empty for some time. Then building work commenced, and I assumed it was just more flats - like the cinema and electrical wholesaler opposite were converted into. But although there are flats, there's also a new pub. -- *Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/2011 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , stuart noble wrote: Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's play area... I have noticed that certain parts of London that used to be vibrant are now littered with empty gastro pubs. Bloody depressing to the casual observer What does "vibrant" mean? Full to the rafters with people enjoying a drink but not likely to be leaving by ambulance. What I'd call normal drinkers |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/2011 00:49, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 30/08/2011 2:49 a.m., Kathy wrote: No one is disputing that. Which bit of 'passive' confused you? Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness. It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently unpleasant. No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other people's airspace. Even if we take health effects completely out of the equation, smoking around people who hate tobacco smoke is like farting in a crowded lift. Extremely discourteous. Although, according to TMH, anyone objecting in this instance would be a stupid, puritanical fascist. A big river in Africa. What I'm actually suggesting is two lifts. But you deliberately chose to misunderstand. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/2011 13:08, mike wrote:
On Aug 30, 12:10 am, wrote: On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote: In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced" than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent? Do I really need to explain that to you? Jon You (by which I mean someone with an analytical mind so obviously not you) could go through that article and point out assumptions, errors, mischaracterisations and contradictions in virtually every sentence. It has no scientific rigour and doesn't cite sources, so I don't know where you get the notion that it contains "REAL facts" as opposed to the less reliable lower case real facts or, indeed, facts. (It does have a lot of exclamation marks though, doesn't it?) It starts off from the premise - which it revisits frequently - that any contrary view is "hysteria". It's as reliable as Gillian McKeith's poo-poking nonsense or David Icke's alien lizards. Clearly, though, as an appeal to emotion, it finds its audience in the sort of folk who just want their prejudices reinforced. I imagine you mean it's balanced in the sense that creationism offers a "balance" to evolution or that "psychic powers" offer a balance to Uri Geller bending the ****ing spoon when you're not looking. No doubt you checked out the "What Can be Done?" section. Amongst all the front-organizations for the tobacco industry, you'll have seen the link to Jackson's buddy, pro-smoking, pro-DDT, pro-asbestos, anti- evolution, anti global warming loon and Glenn Beck-a-like, Steve Milloy. Do you get your tinfoil hats from the same place? So, yes, by all means explain why "singer" Joe Jackson's yellow journalism is more valid than similar self-justifciation from "singer" Gary Glitter. Calm down man, stop raving. Go & have a fag. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , dennis@home wrote: Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas. So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an air supply? Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area? So who is going to collect the glasses and do general supervision as need in a pub? And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this? Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided heated spaces outside for smokers? I know of none that have provided heated areas for smokers, not that i look for them. One such did so by removing the kid's play area... That's good, we wouldn't want kids being exposed to that nasty habit. There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction. Do get a life, Dennis. I have one, smoke free too. I don't have any addictions to anything. I suspect that some people are just going to get addicted to things more easily than those that don't want to be addicts. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter