OllyK

Who is denying you fresh air by forcing you to go in to a smokey pub. Unless you can prove to me that you would die if you don't go in to a pub on a regular basis then you are just trying to claim that what you want is more important and that other people's existing rights shoudl be eroded to suit you. IMO that is fundamentally wrong where there are choices that can be made.

Dracoro

So I take it you are for smoking in workplaces, buses, trains, shops, hospitals etc. as they are all public places. Anyway, smoking is NOT a 'right', it's a priveledge granted by money and choice/stupidity (I used to smoke, I was stupid and I came to my senses). And YES, our health IS more important than peoples existing rights (actually NOT peoples, just smokers) and we will see this ban and people will keep going to pubs. There are 'some' (your radio 1 listeners ) who will avoid the pub, but only for a short while and only as a 'protest'.

popeye

Some forcefully argued points from OllyK there. Shame they were all total ****. Who cares about smokers? Selfish *****, all of them. If they want to stink the place up, they should stay at home.

OllyK

I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me what my thoughts are. We are discussing smoking in pubs ATM, feel free to start a thread to cover the re-introduction of smoking in to places where it is already banned and I'll be happy to contribute.

Please show me the law "granting the priveledge of smoking".

So if health is so important why are you not advocating a total ban on smoking, drinking, drug taking, use of fuels etc that produce toxins and anything else that may affect your and everybody else's health?

Will you support a poposal to ban the internal combustion engine due to the fumes they produce in the interest of public health? If not, I suggest sir, you are a hypocrite and are interested in YOUR rights and not those of the public in general.

I don't smoke, I don't care if people smoke in the pub, I choose to not go to the pub very often. You too can make the same choice.

OllyK

Who cares about <insert any group of people you like>, we are right, the others a wrong. The <insert any group of people you like> are the problem, we should get rid of them, round them up and put them in the gas chambers. Smokers first, then the jews, blacks, asians and anybody else who doesn't agree with us. Oh what a wonderful place the world will be once we are done

scoobynutta555

Just got back from Ireland for the week, as many of you will know has a smoking ban in pubs and restaurants. Chatting with some of the locals on this issue, and in the main they are against the ban, but not by much. Found out that there are a few pubs that have closed down due to reduced custom, and that many of the pubs have built slap-dash 'huts' etc to accomodate smokers outside. A gripe amongst non smokers is that within a large group there will always be somebody missing from the group as there will be a certain amount of people having a *** outside.

I certainly didnt like the idea of a ban, and will be pissed off if it happens here as well.

popeye

Keep crying you Daily Mail reading, paranoid loon. Nobody likes smelly cretin smokers, and nobody cares about their "rights". Bad eggs, the lot of them.

darts_aint_sport

No one is forced to have a social life, but I want to. Smokers also want to have a social life. The only side-effect of my selfish needs is that smokers are deprived from cigarettes for a short amount of time. The side-effect of a smoker's selfish needs is to damage the health of everyone around them. I'll let you decide which is the more worthy.

Jap2Scrap

And all the time it's legal I'll keep taking you with me. C*nt.

scoobynutta555

There may come a time when non drinkers can force pubs into serving non alcoholic drinks only because they get offended by drinkers habits. This would also lessen the burden on the NHS and reduce violence.

Im getting a little bit sick of this nannying attitude. Anything with a small risk attached to it now seems to be jumped up and down on by a health and safety at all costs mentality. You just have to look along the roads now to see camera signs everywhere, and smoking bans are IMHO self serving ego trips for the mummies boys that think up all this $hite.

popeye

Cheers for that. In one sentence you've just shot-down OllyK's entire argument. Enjoy your **** you whilst you're not on a ventilator with your family standing around saying their goodbyes.

Jap2Scrap

I think you'll find that it was a suitable retort to your generous well wishes regarding all smokers dying of cancer. On a smoking level it wouldn't worry me if I could or couldn't smoke in a pub, on many other levels the right to choose being taken away is far more worrying.

OllyK doesn't need me to substantiate his argument. He makes a far better one than the likes of you and lewis with your uneducated, unsubstantiated and mostly derogatory comments.

pslewis

HEY!!! don't group a dick like Popeye with that master of wit pslewis!!

Pete

Jap2Scrap

Sorry pete but you do tend to slip down that route in cases like this. He who shouts loudest isn't always right

Moray

You go to a pub to drink not smoke. Smokers should be locked up in a room with other smokers and smoke. DEATH to smokers

Moray

funny as fuxx hee hee hee

Jap2Scrap

Well this has degenerated to the usual level. Helped by myself I admit. It's such a shame because my first post in this thread applauded Wetherspoons for giving customers a choice. Now I just want to round up all the anti-smoking, high-horse brigade, lock them in a pub and burn the ****** down.. (smoke free fuel as an accelerant of course)..

popeye

Not as worrying as the day in the not too distant future when you cough up a load of blood and go running to the doctor. I hope you'll feel proud of your right to choose when that day comes. Just a shame the bar-staff didn't have that choice.

popeye

Do the pupils of Hurst college know about your life as an Internet *** Lewis?

milo

yeah it does kinda suck that they were forced at gun-point to work in a smoke-filled environment

suprabeast

Death to somkers is a very childish remark, however you raise the interesting point that if all the smokers got locked in one room, through choice, allot of the smokers (non smoking ) friends would probably join them in the room to have a few drinks. Then the fashinable place to go will be the smokers room and everyone will want to go there, suddenly, the tw*ts in government would then want to take away the choice again because some fool starts complaining that he wants to go into the smokers room but doesnt like the smoke, so it'll go round again and they'll build another smokers room somewhere else and the circle will continue

popeye

I doubt if death by cancer is considered a typical, acceptable occupational hazard these days.

milo

it is if:
(a) you CHOOSE to work in a smoke-filled environment
and
(b) passive smoking causes death by cancer

paulr

totally agree,my boss spent new year in dublin and said it was the best new year ever,smoke free,made so much difference.

Mr Sympathy

Have I completely missed anyone saying that like it or not majority rule is the main precedent here and as 75% of people do not smoke why should 25% continue to place their habit upon others where all they have to do is smoke in private and have a small amount of freedom curtailed.
Has the fox hunting debate ever surfaced on here? is that another can of worms? I am against it but used to shoot them years ago for farmers to earn a bit of cash...now that could start a lively forum eh?

OllyK

I'm not

Unless you have proof regarding the daily newspapers I do or don't read, stop lying about me.

Unless you have proof in the form of access to my medical records to back this up - stop lying.

Please provide proof that "nobody" likes smokers. I have no issue with them so you are struggling already.

Please prove that all smokers are cretins.

Wrong - again, I do, I care about everybodies rights.

What a caring, considerate individual you are.

You cannot put forward a well thought out case to support your POV so instead result to ad hominem attacks and lies. Who's the bigot now?

OllyK

Who is to say that one group of people should have more right to something than another??

The current attitude seems to be "ban it, unless it affects me or my way of life, stuff everybody else".

Why not try and find a better solution, why not make more effort to educate and provide alternatives?

OllyK

Well said!

OllyK

It isn't just a numbers game, you can just run rough shod over the rights and wishes of a particular group of people just because your group has more people in it - we'd all be driving Fords if that was the case

TheBigMan

**NEWSFLASH**

Ollyk is wrong and he can't take it.

I supposed there is a first time for everything, ye of all knowledge.