Smoking ban in pub gardens.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Smoking ban in pub gardens.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 1.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour. I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it. Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts.
It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline.

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour.
I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it.

Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 1.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for. And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal. So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ? What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates. Smoking is a blight on society. You mean the same nicotine addicts who aren't smoking inside, for you rights. Its a reasonable compromise, that smoking in pubs was restricted for health reasons. Smokers have to go outside to lit up, maybe you should met them half way and stay inside if you don't like smokers. There is no justification for drinking either, but you're still in a pub. I would also limit drinking as well. Drunkard behaviour in public is also undesirable.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 1.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for.

And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal.

So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ?
What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates.

Smoking is a blight on society.

You mean the same nicotine addicts who aren't smoking inside, for you rights. Its a reasonable compromise, that smoking in pubs was restricted for health reasons. Smokers have to go outside to lit up, maybe you should met them half way and stay inside if you don't like smokers.

There is no justification for drinking either, but you're still in a pub.

I would also limit drinking as well. Drunkard behaviour in public is also undesirable.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 1.20pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.09pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge. What happened to people's rights? I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway? These rights are part of a free state. That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ? Go inside the pub, where you can't smoke? Outside the risk from secondary smoke is minimal. It doesn't matter what a majority want, if their rights essentially result in an exclusion of another groups rights. The majority are catered for. And using the argument that 'its for the kids' is a false basis for an economic defense of the majority, as the economic contribution to pubs of number of people who take kids to pubs compared to people who smoke and drink, is minimal. So I have to alter my behaviour to appease some nicotine addicts ? What a ridiculous argument. There is no justification for smoking whatsoever. THe government only tolerates it because of the revenue it generates. Smoking is a blight on society. You mean the same nicotine addicts who aren't smoking inside, for you rights. Its a reasonable compromise, that smoking in pubs was restricted for health reasons. Smokers have to go outside to lit up, maybe you should met them half way and stay inside if you don't like smokers. There is no justification for drinking either, but you're still in a pub. I would also limit drinking as well. Drunkard behaviour in public is also undesirable. But you go to pubs, which create public drunkenness? Do you consume alcohol in those pubs. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 1.20pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.25pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 13 Aug 2015 8.35pm

Quote pefwin at 13 Aug 2015 8.31pm

Nanny state gaawwwnn mad. Thin end of a mighty wedge.

What happened to people's rights?

I still believe that it should be up to the Landlord whether or not it should be a smoking pub (inside or out). Who let kids into pubs anyway?

These rights are part of a free state.

That argument does not stand up. The majority don't smoke. What about their rights ?

Smoking is a blight on society.

There is no justification for drinking either, but you're still in a pub.

I would also limit drinking as well. Drunkard behaviour in public is also undesirable.

But you go to pubs, which create public drunkenness? Do you consume alcohol in those pubs.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 1.22pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour. I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it. Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ? Just smoking? It seems like you don't like anything you don't agree with. Why should you put up with it, because everyone else has to also put up with you I guess, and we all meet someone in the middle of a compromise solution. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 1.22pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour.
I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it.

Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?

Just smoking? It seems like you don't like anything you don't agree with. Why should you put up with it, because everyone else has to also put up with you I guess, and we all meet someone in the middle of a compromise solution.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Buzzcock In an underground lair near Bright... 14 Aug 15 1.26pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour. I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it. Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ? Jawohl mein Fuhrer! Of course you can justify it. Try being tolerant of other people who are participating in a perfectly legal activity. In the woods there grew a tree. And a fine fine tree was he.
Alert a moderator to this post

Buzzcock

In an underground lair near Bright... 14 Aug 15 1.26pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour.
I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it.

Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?

Jawohl mein Fuhrer!
Of course you can justify it. Try being tolerant of other people who are participating in a perfectly legal activity.

In the woods there grew a tree. And a fine fine tree was he.

Alert a moderator to this post

so many memories basingstoke 14 Aug 15 1.28pm
The judge. Look what your missing out on. I expect you want outside patio heaters banned due to the overwhelming warmth they give us smokers when outside. Most probably due to extra expense it costs you non smokers to install them. Attachment: smoke-outside.jpeg (65.62Kb) Get it on-get it in-F**K OFF ALAN HANSEN!!
Alert a moderator to this post

so many memories

basingstoke 14 Aug 15 1.28pm

Send a Private Message to so many memories

The judge.
Look what your missing out on.
I expect you want outside patio heaters banned due to the overwhelming warmth they give us smokers when outside.
Most probably due to extra expense it costs you non smokers to install them.

Attachment: smoke-outside.jpeg (65.62Kb)

Get it on-get it in-F**K OFF ALAN HANSEN!!

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 2.57pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.22pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour. I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it. Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ? Just smoking? It seems like you don't like anything you don't agree with. Why should you put up with it, because everyone else has to also put up with you I guess, and we all meet someone in the middle of a compromise solution. Here comes the straw man. Smoking is bad for your health. Only someone addled with nicotine addiction or someone deluded about other peoples "right" swould argue for it. What I agree with has nothing to do with it.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 2.57pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.22pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?

Here comes the straw man.

Smoking is bad for your health. Only someone addled with nicotine addiction or someone deluded about other peoples "right" swould argue for it.

What I agree with has nothing to do with it.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 3.02pm
Quote so many memories at 14 Aug 2015 1.28pm The judge. Look what your missing out on. I expect you want outside patio heaters banned due to the overwhelming warmth they give us smokers when outside. Most probably due to extra expense it costs you non smokers to install them. You can call me Judge if you like but please at least use the correct grammar for "you're". Seriously. You can't argue for smoking as a smoker. It is the same as arguing for heroin as a user. Your perspective is skewed by drug addiction.
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 3.02pm

Quote so many memories at 14 Aug 2015 1.28pm

The judge.
Look what your missing out on.
I expect you want outside patio heaters banned due to the overwhelming warmth they give us smokers when outside.
Most probably due to extra expense it costs you non smokers to install them.

You can call me Judge if you like but please at least use the correct grammar for "you're".

Seriously. You can't argue for smoking as a smoker.

It is the same as arguing for heroin as a user. Your perspective is skewed by drug addiction.

Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge 14 Aug 15 3.06pm
Quote Buzzcock at 14 Aug 2015 1.26pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour. I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it. Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ? Jawohl mein Fuhrer! Of course you can justify it. Try being tolerant of other people who are participating in a perfectly legal activity. I'm not debating legality. It's health issues that concern me. Do you think that smoking would be legal if the treasury didn't make such a large amount of revenue from it ?
Alert a moderator to this post

TheJudge

14 Aug 15 3.06pm

Quote Buzzcock at 14 Aug 2015 1.26pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?

Jawohl mein Fuhrer!
Of course you can justify it. Try being tolerant of other people who are participating in a perfectly legal activity.

I'm not debating legality. It's health issues that concern me.

Do you think that smoking would be legal if the treasury didn't make such a large amount of revenue from it ?

Alert a moderator to this post

so many memories basingstoke 14 Aug 15 3.40pm
My body my choice. Attachment: images.jpeg (9.73Kb) Get it on-get it in-F**K OFF ALAN HANSEN!!
Alert a moderator to this post

so many memories

basingstoke 14 Aug 15 3.40pm

My body my choice.

Attachment: images.jpeg (9.73Kb)

Get it on-get it in-F**K OFF ALAN HANSEN!!

Alert a moderator to this post

regal_eagle somewhere 14 Aug 15 3.42pm
Quote fed up eagle at 13 Aug 2015 5.17pm I'm not a smoker but this is wrong. Soon they'll be banning f@rting, and anyone caught doing it will be fined with a suspended jail term Can't we introduce this to BlockB?! Whoever 'Jonny Rotten-Bottom' is, sort your bowels out before the match!
Alert a moderator to this post

regal_eagle

somewhere 14 Aug 15 3.42pm

Quote fed up eagle at 13 Aug 2015 5.17pm

I'm not a smoker but this is wrong. Soon they'll be banning f@rting, and anyone caught doing it will be fined with a suspended jail term

Can't we introduce this to BlockB?!

Whoever 'Jonny Rotten-Bottom' is, sort your bowels out before the match!

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 4.17pm
Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 2.57pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.22pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm I'm sure there are people who complain when someone closes their crack house but that is because the are sad addicts. It is the same with smokers. They are just sad addicts deluding themselves that they should have the right to smoke when the truth is that would give up tomorrow if they had the discipline. None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action. Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different. No they are not. They both own their users and make them alter their behaviour. I don't want smoking anywhere where I might be. Why should I or any other non smoker have to put up with smoke ? You cannot justify it. Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ? Just smoking? It seems like you don't like anything you don't agree with. Why should you put up with it, because everyone else has to also put up with you I guess, and we all meet someone in the middle of a compromise solution. Here comes the straw man. Smoking is bad for your health. Only someone addled with nicotine addiction or someone deluded about other peoples "right" swould argue for it. What I agree with has nothing to do with it. Its is, but here is the kicker, its my health. If I'm smoking outdoors, it has no effect on your health at all (secondary smoking harm requires continual or long term exposure, such as being in enclosed spaces regularly were people smoke). If your outside, the air dilutes the amount far too thoroughly and quickly to present a risk. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 14 Aug 15 4.17pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 2.57pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.22pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 1.00pm

Quote TheJudge at 14 Aug 2015 12.54pm

None of which is relevant to the argument. You have a nice non-smoking area in every pub in the country you can enjoy. They have an area they can smoke in. Democracy in action.

Also try to avoid shill hyperbole, it makes you look less intelligent than you actually are. Crack cocaine and smoking are very different.

Pandering to addicts ? You really think that is reasonable ?

Here comes the straw man.

Smoking is bad for your health. Only someone addled with nicotine addiction or someone deluded about other peoples "right" swould argue for it.

What I agree with has nothing to do with it.

Its is, but here is the kicker, its my health. If I'm smoking outdoors, it has no effect on your health at all (secondary smoking harm requires continual or long term exposure, such as being in enclosed spaces regularly were people smoke). If your outside, the air dilutes the amount far too thoroughly and quickly to present a risk.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Smoking ban in pub gardens.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors