Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[pnhmrk]

How much of my whiskey or beer is involuntarily consumed by others in the same room?

 

A similar question could be how many old ladies slipped in a puddle or my vomit that was caused by my smoking a cigarette?:)

[GAV BOY]

A similar question could be how many old ladies slipped in a puddle or my vomit that was caused by my smoking a cigarette?:)

 

Malcolm are you suggesting that Stowaway vomits ! :eek:

[stowaway2k]

A similar question could be how many old ladies slipped in a puddle or my vomit that was caused by my smoking a cigarette?:)

I don't know. How many?

But...

No, that is not a similar question.

 

Drinking does not always result in vomiting. As a matter of fact, in my case, and in most, never.

 

Not all drinkers are binge drinkers. At least not where I come from. :rolleyes:

 

But, every cigarette lit will always, at the very least, result in a lingering stench that cannot be avoided by others in a public place.

[Kindlychap]

Malcolm,

 

Sex in public is illegal. Has that been banned? But according to your logic, it should be?

 

Peter

 

I'm afraid this isn't correct Peter, at least not on the assumption that the jurisdiction concerned is England and Wales which, given that both Cunarders are registered within this jurisdiction, presumably it is.

 

Getting your bits out to insult etc. is an offence.

 

Sex in a public lavatory is an offence (for both men and women)

 

But sex in an isolated place, where there is no expection of being disturbed is perfectly acceptable.

 

On the other hand, there are public order offences that would cover your behaviour if passion got the better of you in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

 

Matthew

 

PS The Sexual Offences Act 2003 has removed much of the distinction between different flavours of sex, which is all to the good. Interestingly, whilst it is illegal to have sex with a human corpse, and illegal to have sex with an animal, it is perfectly legal to have sex with a dead animal. One small drafting error if you ask me......

[SamanthasDad]

I don't believe you do.

Now you know more about myself than I do. where is your proof. Oh, that's right, you don't need proof because if you say it it must be true.

 

What about you being slightly more tolerant of the views of others

I am tolerant of others views. It's their smoke that I don't like.:)

 

We (well at least I am) are still waiting for you to provide any independent peer reviewed scientific proof of your views.

 

I've had enough of this topic. Just like the pubs the smokers have driven me from it. You can now add to your majority.

 

I can not wait for July and the introduction of this new legislation.

[guernseyguy]

I'm afraid this isn't correct Peter, at least not on the assumption that the jurisdiction concerned is England and Wales which, given that both Cunarders are registered within this jurisdiction, presumably it is. Getting your bits out to insult etc. is an offence. Sex in a public lavatory is an offence (for both men and women) But sex in an isolated place, where there is no expection of being disturbed is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, there are public order offences that would cover your behaviour if passion got the better of you in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

 

Matthew

 

PS The Sexual Offences Act 2003 has removed much of the distinction between different flavours of sex, which is all to the good. Interestingly, whilst it is illegal to have sex with a human corpse, and illegal to have sex with an animal, it is perfectly legal to have sex with a dead animal. One small drafting error if you ask me......

 

Thank you for the correction/clarification....even if possibly a bit too much information....and to paraphrase its alright to do it in public....as long as 'you have a reasonable expectation of privacy'....bit like smoking, really.

 

Peter

[stowaway2k]

I'm afraid this isn't correct Peter, at least not on the assumption that the jurisdiction concerned is England and Wales which, given that both Cunarders are registered within this jurisdiction, presumably it is.

 

Getting your bits out to insult etc. is an offence.

 

Sex in a public lavatory is an offence (for both men and women)

 

But sex in an isolated place, where there is no expection of being disturbed is perfectly acceptable.

 

On the other hand, there are public order offences that would cover your behaviour if passion got the better of you in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

 

Matthew

 

PS The Sexual Offences Act 2003 has removed much of the distinction between different flavours of sex, which is all to the good. Interestingly, whilst it is illegal to have sex with a human corpse, and illegal to have sex with an animal, it is perfectly legal to have sex with a dead animal. One small drafting error if you ask me......

 

 

Matthew is our "go-to" guy on public sex...

[DON M.]

Once again the smokers are not understanding the problem!

 

Karie has been saying that secondhand smoke makes her current condition worse and could be life threatening. I don't remember her saying that the one and only cause of her condition was secondhand smoke.

 

I have said that smoke makes my asthma worse, at no stage have I said what caused it.

 

This is like arguing with a brick wall!! There maybe 300 posts, but take some time and actually read what the non-smokers are trying to say.

 

I understand that smokers have rights, I would just like them to be more considerate. But this is never going to happen so legislation is the only way forward.

 

I dont know if Iam exception to the rule, but I am a very considerate smoker MOST of the time. No smoking while waiting in lines, in my car with a non-smoker, in my house with guests, or where there are alot of people around I walk away. However, I cant understand why a person who hates smoke, and it makes them ill,would walk into a casino, sit down next to me and ask that I not smoke. Am I being inconsiderate when I say no, I suppose so, but so is the person asking me.

[guernseyguy]

Matthew is our "go-to" guy on public sex...

 

What did you understand when Matthew told you he was a 'Solicitor'........:eek:

[stowaway2k]

What did you understand when Matthew told you he was a 'Solicitor'........:eek:

 

hmmm...well, his location doesn't say "Kings Cross"

 

And for the record...

"go-to guy" means to go to for information only... :o :eek:

 

Yikes! This thread, as all good threads do, has finally gotten to the good stuff.

[pnhmrk]

Now you know more about myself than I do. where is your proof. Oh, that's right, you don't need proof because if you say it it must be true.

 

Proof? Of an opinion? How do I prove what I believe?

 

I am tolerant of others views.

 

You haven't been on this thread.

 

I've had enough of this topic. Just like the pubs the smokers have driven me from it.

 

I'm with you there - we are getting some very unpleasant comments being made, however I will not let the odd irritating poster stop me reading a thread.

[travel-to-go]

300 posts in ten days.

 

A contentious subject.

 

Shh! Next topic: Smoking while wearing denim kilts by those of possible Chinese ancestry generations ago (therefore, not REALLY Chinese) on Formal night in Steerage.

 

 

Karie,

who can't believe she did a scandisk and went to the hardware store and came back to TWO MORE PAGES of this! (And the top of the last page- something about sex in public being illegal? Well, okay, the next topic will be: "Smoking after sex in a denim kilt by people of Chinese...yada, yada, yada...<G>)"

[travel-to-go]

Iam sorry about your illness, but to blame my second-hand smoke is just not fair. You might of gotten the same illness if you never left your home for 40 years. And, to answer your question, until I quit or die or until it is illegal outside of the home, I will continue to have the satisfaction of smoking.

Don,

My point was not that someone's second hand smoke caused my illness. My point is that today, whether as a result of the weakness of my constitution or as result of my illness, I sometimes cannot tolerate smoke at all. In fact, I usually cannot tolerate it. Sometimes, if it is not heavy in the air or carelessly directed towards me, I can cope. The way Golden Lion Pub is constructed, it does not really matter if you are in the smoking or non-smoking. BTW, you cannot GET to the non-smoking without going through the smoking area! Usually, because it makes me uncomfortable and because I never know (until it is too late) when I will have seriously compromised breathing from exposure to smoke I avoid it like the plague. I could not go to bars for years. I had NO choice. You could choose to step outside or go three hours without a cigarette. I had ZERO choice. I am not telling you not to smoke. Far from it! If you wish to walk around in a cloud of smoke, go for it! Have a ball! Me, I love salty fried foods with rich creamy sauces (ok, well, maybe not all at once, but I love all of those things) Are they killing me? You betcha! Do my Doctors want me to lose weight and eat more healthy? Absolutely. But if you want to see me throw a hissy, tell me I can't eat anything fried, or cheese, or butter, mayonnaise, or no salt. I might as well go ahead and die now, as life will not be worth living any more! When I was diagnosed with digestive illnesses IBD, then Crohns, which made me severely underweight, I became lactose intolerant.

I told the Doc, "Doc- Tell me to give up sex!" (and don't get me wrong, I love sex!) "Don't tell me to give up CHEESE!" (sound like a British Claymation Character anyone knows?)

 

So yes, I do know what it is like to have an obsession which is not good for me and which I cannot rationalize away (false studies, whatever) I know these things are bad for me. And no, at this point in my life, I have no intention of changing my lifestyle. However, I will never say never. Now that I am also diabetic, and knowing that not being in control of my sugar levels could cause blindness (diabetic retinopathy) and possible loss of limb (diabetic neuropathy) I may decide living with eyesight and being able to walk trumps eating foods (fats, starches, and sugars) which are bad for me.

 

Well, actually, I do try to control (though I just had a couple of handfuls of Charles Chips <G>- Remember those, Americans? ) BUt I know I have to lose weight.

 

well, I'm also ADHD and I have wandered off onto a tangent.

My purpose of my sad sob story is not to blame you for my illness, but to advise you that carcinogen or not, your second hand smoke can be harmful to others. This is not simply a lifestyle choice for many- (Though it is for some) I'm not blaming you or asking you to give up your favorite vice. (I have a few of my own!) Simply asking you to be considerate of those who may not be fortunate enough to have the superb and healthy constitution that you do. And explaining that restricting your LOCATION of smoking is not nearly as onerous as not restricting it is for some others. You can go elsewhere or wait for a smoke. If smoking is allowed, I may not EVER be able to frequent that location, or I will suffer health consequences as a result of my "Choice" to enter an environment where I may be exposed. In essence, restricting certain locations still allows you some choices. Not restricting them takes away my choice completely. I cannot decide to just breath later.

 

Karie,

who really does not wish to be querulous and does understand the allure of substances which are bad for us, yet we persist in indulging anyway!

[travel-to-go]

I'm one of those who stood up, at first, for the right to smoke. I do so, in part, on behalf of my late father (ante).

 

I spent some time last night having drinks with some friends from work. One of whom (at least) was smoking. I can't say it made too much difference to me. I'm an easy going chap though.

 

As someone in the middle ground, I am annoyed as much by the rabid "I'll smoke where I like, when I like and the rest of you can just lump it" group as much as the "I refuse to be in 300 metres of a smoker without making loud remarks about how people shouldn't be smoking in a smoking area because it escapes" group.

 

Few people would deny that the world would be a better place without smoking. Certainly my father wouldnt' have argued with that concept.

 

But we can't put the clock back, and there are more important things to worry about.

 

Sometimes, of course, you'll find someone like Karie around. Is anyone here going to claim that they would smoke in her presence if she was having a bad day? - because if you are then shame on you.

 

Perhaps this thread has run long enough. We are going round in circles.

 

Matthew

 

Matthew,

I love you! Marry me and have my children!

 

Okay- Maybe not.

 

That is my whole point.

I love my dear friend Maria to death. I have watched her suffer through chemo and radiation therapy and all that entails along with permanent changes to her life from treatment of breast cancer. I have cried for her, I have worried about her. I have sat on pins and needles waiting for the results of the latest tests. And I worry because she hasn't posted here or on another shared forum in a week. And I worry terribly when I hear her taking a drag when we are on the phone. But she's a big girl. an adult. She knows without my telling her that being a breast cancer survivor and a smoker are not really compatible. But I also understand the stress she is under, And I understand the pleasure she gets from smoking, and I recognize that when she is ready to quit, she will. And I will be by her side with advice (after all, I went through it- and that was a number of years BEFORE my respiratory failure! But I already had smoking lung damage by then, I now know) I'll be there with support and a crying shoulder and a boat load of coffee stirrers (I chewed them up one after another for something to do with both hands and mouth) Until that time, or if it never happens, she is still my very dear friend. As is Penny, who choses to indulge. (but then she doesn't drink- Hmm, why are we friends? A smoky tee-totaler! -oh yeah! Cuz I like her and she has a marvelous personality!) I will try to cope with the smoke, and I know that both of them will be protective of my health. Because that's the kind of people both of them are.

BTW, those of you who wish to quit. I quit when cigarettes were $11 a carton in CT. (1984) I vowed to save that money. (My ex-husband and I quit together) If you are a two pack a day-er - or even one, Just think if you were to quit, and put aside the money you would have spent, at today's prices, you'll have that grill crossing money saved up in no time!

 

Karie,

who is certainly glad someone understands what we "rabid anti-smokers" are trying to say. (And I am NOT rabid! I had my rabies shots. Just got through with the series two weeks ago, thank you!)

[DON M.]

Don,

My point was not that someone's second hand smoke caused my illness. My point is that today, whether as a result of the weakness of my constitution or as result of my illness, I sometimes cannot tolerate smoke at all. In fact, I usually cannot tolerate it. Sometimes, if it is not heavy in the air or carelessly directed towards me, I can cope. The way Golden Lion Pub is constructed, it does not really matter if you are in the smoking or non-smoking. BTW, you cannot GET to the non-smoking without going through the smoking area! Usually, because it makes me uncomfortable and because I never know (until it is too late) when I will have seriously compromised breathing from exposure to smoke I avoid it like the plague. I could not go to bars for years. I had NO choice. You could choose to step outside or go three hours without a cigarette. I had ZERO choice. I am not telling you not to smoke. Far from it! If you wish to walk around in a cloud of smoke, go for it! Have a ball! Me, I love salty fried foods with rich creamy sauces (ok, well, maybe not all at once, but I love all of those things) Are they killing me? You betcha! Do my Doctors want me to lose weight and eat more healthy? Absolutely. But if you want to see me throw a hissy, tell me I can't eat anything fried, or cheese, or butter, mayonnaise, or no salt. I might as well go ahead and die now, as life will not be worth living any more! When I was diagnosed with digestive illnesses IBD, then Crohns, which made me severely underweight, I became lactose intolerant.

I told the Doc, "Doc- Tell me to give up sex!" (and don't get me wrong, I love sex!) "Don't tell me to give up CHEESE!" (sound like a British Claymation Character anyone knows?)

 

So yes, I do know what it is like to have an obsession which is not good for me and which I cannot rationalize away (false studies, whatever) I know these things are bad for me. And no, at this point in my life, I have no intention of changing my lifestyle. However, I will never say never. Now that I am also diabetic, and knowing that not being in control of my sugar levels could cause blindness (diabetic retinopathy) and possible loss of limb (diabetic neuropathy) I may decide living with eyesight and being able to walk trumps eating foods (fats, starches, and sugars) which are bad for me.

 

Well, actually, I do try to control (though I just had a couple of handfuls of Charles Chips <G>- Remember those, Americans? ) BUt I know I have to lose weight.

 

well, I'm also ADHD and I have wandered off onto a tangent.

My purpose of my sad sob story is not to blame you for my illness, but to advise you that carcinogen or not, your second hand smoke can be harmful to others. This is not simply a lifestyle choice for many- (Though it is for some) I'm not blaming you or asking you to give up your favorite vice. (I have a few of my own!) Simply asking you to be considerate of those who may not be fortunate enough to have the superb and healthy constitution that you do. And explaining that restricting your LOCATION of smoking is not nearly as onerous as not restricting it is for some others. You can go elsewhere or wait for a smoke. If smoking is allowed, I may not EVER be able to frequent that location, or I will suffer health consequences as a result of my "Choice" to enter an environment where I may be exposed. In essence, restricting certain locations still allows you some choices. Not restricting them takes away my choice completely. I cannot decide to just breath later.

 

Karie,

who really does not wish to be querulous and does understand the allure of substances which are bad for us, yet we persist in indulging anyway!

 

I appreciate your post and commend your honesty and common sense that there are hundreds of factors that make up one's life span ( 1 of which is bad luck). Here in Calif., my CHOICES of where to smoke have pretty much been relagated to my home, my car, and outdoors. And even in a nearby burb I could face a fine if found guilty of the new law which is: no smoking allowed outdoors in areas where people congregate. So the restrictions are pretty much in place and most of the nation will soon follow CA. Smoking will never become illegal in my lifetime, only compromise and restrictions. Which, I have adjusted to and actually it does not bother me at all. Whats more bothersome is the people who believe everything the govt. prints, the lecturing, and being treated as a leper. And the people who believe smoking causes every illness known to mankind.

[travel-to-go]

Karie - I don't think that anyone's saying that they will insist upon smoking to the detriment of somebody else's health. The big debate is between those people who are willing to allow the freedom to choose between smoking and non smoking venues to be made by the establishment itself and you cannot smoke. There must be a middle ground between not smoking anywhere and smoking everywhere!

Malcolm,

Would that it were possible.

Unfortunately, that's like being "a little pregnant" You either are or you aren't!

We just had a ruling the other day. Certain bar owners claim that they went out of business because of the ban on smoking in bars in CT. Why? Because it exempted the two Indian Casinos (they are considered sovereign, though I expect that to change soon, also, as yesterday there was a ruling against them- They have to abide by labor laws) but the other exemption was existing private clubs, such as the Elks, the Army Navy, VFW, or Sons of Italy. Now the casinos I will not argue- at this point- however, part of the rationale for the ban was that even if a customer could choose not to patronize your establishment, an employee has no choice. Well, one could say, then get a job elsewhere! Well, I gotta tell you, for

unskilled" work, waiting tables and tending bar can be lucrative in the right place. I also gave up a chance at a career singing, which would have meant bars, at that time, because of the smoke. I was singing twice weekly in a band (in a non-smoking venue- a resident hospital's dances) and helping with the occasional musical play or music classes. It was something I really wanted to do. I'm too old to think about it now, but I would have really enjoyed it. I miss singing. Of course I probably wouldn't have met any of y'all as I would either be a poor lounge singer or I would be rich and famous and could not dare to hobnob with the likes of you.. you... peasants and commoners! <G>

 

Anyway, given free choice, no bar is going to go smoke free. (I think there were actually two in the state that opened up as smoke free to answer the unmet need! An entire population who didn't go to bars BECAUSE of the smoke) When my father died, I went over the the Elks in Florida (I don't know what the laws are there now) I spoke with people who remembered my father fondly, wanted to know if there would be an Elks ceremony, and wanted to chat- Some knew me from my growing up there. I sat there with one gent with an oxygen tank, while his wife had a cigarette over in a different area. I was struggling to breathe around some smokers, but didn't want to be rude to these people who loved my father and were sharing my grief. They didn't mean to be rude. and I am the type who won't say anything. I'll talk here, but I would never ask someone to put out there cigarette or ask them to move. I just can't do that. So I will leave instead, or suffer.

 

So given that going smoke free would not immediately bring in customers who would love to drink in a smoke free atmosphere (these people have gotten used to not going to bars) but there will be a certain portion of the populace who will stay away if they can't smoke (Some people, even those who have otherwise quit simply cannot drink without smoking! I never had that problem as my ex was an alcoholic. I never learned to associate drinking with smoking, as so many people do, in part because their inhibitions are down.) then it is highly unlikely that most bar owners would voluntarily restrict smoking. Reality has proven that it just doesn't happen.

In fact, until smoking sections were mandated in restaurants, it was difficult to find a restaurant with either a GOOD non-smoking section (not just this table is smoking this isn't, since that darned smoke never seems to stay where it's told) or a non-smoking restaurant (Most of these-the few there were, were also health-food, and I love my red meat! just stuck a spoon roast in the oven!)

 

Oh there I go, off on a wordy reply again.

Sorry.

Well, in short, if a lack of regulation would work, that would be marvelous. But like handicapped accessibility, people will not do this voluntarily. what a wonderful world it would be if we did not need laws. but they exist because they have to.

 

Karie,

who is in favor of all sorts of things being unregulated. Sadly, it just doesn't seem to work.

[travel-to-go]

I understand that smokers have rights, I would just like them to be more considerate. QUOTE]

 

Problem is of course that many smokers are not considerate. And not many of us need the agro of confrontation, so we just move away if we can.

 

I have never sat with a smoker in a pub and been asked if I minded if he/she smoked, smokers just don't think that way. And you have to be a non smoker to know how unpleasant secondary smoke can be.

 

And we know who is most upset by tobacco smoke. Ex smokers of course.

 

David.

David,

I'm sorry. I can't let this one pass.

As an "anti smoking zealot" I have to give credit where credit is due. I have had people ask me. And because they are kind enough to do so, I will usually ask that they try to blow it another direction, as I have lung disease. Some will say, that's okay, I can wait. I don't really have to have one now. I suspect it might be less likely in a pub, simply because it may already be smoky and because people's inhibitions are down. But there are plenty of polite smokers, and plenty who would be but don't realize they are causing discomfort.

 

Karie,

who may be somewhat anti- smoking, but tries not to be anti-cmoker

[travel-to-go]

The legislation is a very heavy handed method of preventing the spread so smoke. In fact I don't see much difference between that and a total ban! I think that the argument is about the right of a government to outlaw a perfectly legal activity in vast areas of the country

 

 

 

I wonder if Cunard have thought about it? Or if they're hoping that the legislation pertaining to cruise ships will have calmed down by then.

 

Malcolm,

Drinking is not legal in a lot of places. On the streets, in cars, in schools. There are a lot of places where drinking cannot be done,whether by law or by decision of management (no I am not arguing leave it up to business owners, I am simply saying that in this case, many business owners DO restrict your right to do something which would otherwise be legal.)

Would you suggest that because there are so many place one cannot drink, it should just as well be outlawed? I think not!

 

As for Cunard- Don 't be so quick to think they aren't in favor of the ban. you see, smoke and cigarettes have always been a mixed deal for property owners, especially hospitality properties. It can be very damaging (burn holes, stale stinky air, gooey tarry substance on walls, furniture, windows and mirrors, and because it is gooey, it makes dust harder to remove or keep off) So smoking is actually a cost causer to them. However, they would not be so crazy as to tell their patrons not to smoke. Hence, the perfect answer. "Oh, gee, We're sorry. We'd love to let you smoke, You see, it's the government. We have to follow the rules" An expense (and possible liability - the added fire risk) thwarted, they may possibly even get reduced insurance rates (I did on my homeowners when my ex and I quit) and they aren't to blame!

 

Karie,

who is more savvy than some might think

[travel-to-go]

For such a libertarian on tobacco you are quite the puritan on alcohol!

 

Standard UK advice for men is 3/4 units per day not to exceed 21 units per week.

 

Others are more liberal, with the Basque Country suggesting nearly 9 units per day and the French Academy of Medicine 7.5 units/day.

 

See here: http://www.icap.org/PolicyIssues/DrinkingGuidelines/GuidelinesTable/tabid/204/Default.aspx

 

Peter

 

I guess I need to get out more.

How much is a unit?

I went to a bar last night, and I just ordered a Margarita, Rocks, no salt, and Marc ordered a Long Trail beer. They didn't ask us how many units!

 

KP

[travel-to-go]

Matthew is our "go-to" guy on public sex...

 

Ohhh!:o

Now I understand the funnel Run! :p

 

KP:cool:

[travel-to-go]

I appreciate your post and commend your honesty and common sense that there are hundreds of factors that make up one's life span ( 1 of which is bad luck). Here in Calif., my CHOICES of where to smoke have pretty much been relagated to my home, my car, and outdoors. Whats more bothersome is the people who believe everything the govt. prints, the lecturing, and being treated as a leper. And the people who believe smoking causes every illness known to mankind.

 

Don,

Whatever you do, do NOT move to Connecticut. This week, legislation was introduced to the general assembly to outlaw smoking in cars with children present. (Same as the rules for car seats- so many pounds, so many years) "Expert testimony" was given by a ten year old boy (He really did do a marvelous job! I don't even think he was coached He came up with this on his own, for his own reasons!) Actually this makes sense. A child in an enclosed car is exposed to higher concentration and if they are small enough to require a child seat, have no choice and cannot move to avoid it.

 

Oh, you're from California? Oh, then go ahead and smoke 'em if you got 'em...cuz you're falling into the ocean any day now! <G> (My Dad and step-mom used to live in San Jose.) "Lizbeth It's the BIG ONE"

 

I don't believe much the government tells me these days.

 

And while smoking doesn't CAUSE everything, it does make it harder to resist or fight off things, and harder to heal. Smoke is an irritant and foreign substance, so the body uses its defenses trying to fight it off (I.E. clear your lungs of the coating from smoking) Personally I wondered if all the deaths from smoking, obesity, salt intake, lack of exercise, drinking, driving too fast, stress, birth control pills, not enough sleep, various drugs, legal and otherwise, fatty foods, and all of the other things which cause strokes and heart attacks were added up would it come to more people than there actually ARE? <G>

 

KP

[pnhmrk]

The way Golden Lion Pub is constructed, it does not really matter if you are in the smoking or non-smoking. BTW, you cannot GET to the non-smoking without going through the smoking area!

 

The Golden Lion on the QE2 has 2 entrances so it is possible to get to the non-smoking area without passing through the smoking section. That said I still don't like it as a bar!

 

I could not go to bars for years. I had NO choice.

 

There are now bars in York that are entirely non-smoking (admittedly I can only think of two), there are lots of bars where the smoking area is entirely separate from the non-smoking area and there are still bars where there either isn't a non-smoking area or it isn't separately divided. Why should we go back from having a choice for everyone to having a sizable minority inconvenienced?

 

Whats more bothersome is the people who believe everything the govt. prints, the lecturing, and being treated as a leper. And the people who believe smoking causes every illness known to mankind.

 

What is worrying is that a small minority of people can influence an entire government:eek:

[pnhmrk]

Drinking is not legal in a lot of places. On the streets, in cars, in schools.

 

I can believe that of the States:p But in this country there is no law prohibiting drinking (alcohol) in all those places. There will be laws that stop certain people from drinking (eg underage); laws that allow certain areas to be drink-free; laws covering the sale of alcohol; etc.

 

There are a lot of places where drinking cannot be done,whether by law or by decision of management (no I am not arguing leave it up to business owners, I am simply saying that in this case, many business owners DO restrict your right to do something which would otherwise be legal.)

Would you suggest that because there are so many place one cannot drink, it should just as well be outlawed? I think not!

 

Karie - you must take these two subjects at the same level. I am not (nobody has) suggesting that alcohol should be banned. If alcohol could only be drunk in the home then it might as well be banned but that isn't something I'd like to see (although I'm sure that it would show a dramatic reduction in road deaths, violent crime, etc).

 

As for Cunard - Don 't be so quick to think they aren't in favor of the ban. you see, smoke and cigarettes have always been a mixed deal for property owners, especially hospitality properties.

 

You don't need to tell me of the problems experienced by the hospitality industry with smoking - I was a Hotel Manager once upon a time. Equally you don't need to tell me that we always had much greater demand for our smoking rooms than we ever did for the non-smoking ones.

[pnhmrk]

Drinking is not legal in a lot of places. On the streets, in cars, in schools.

I can believe that of the States But in this country there is no law prohibiting drinking (alcohol) in all those places. There will be laws that stop certain people from drinking (eg underage); laws that allow certain areas to be drink-free; laws covering the sale of alcohol; etc.

There are a lot of places where drinking cannot be done,whether by law or by decision of management (no I am not arguing leave it up to business owners, I am simply saying that in this case, many business owners DO restrict your right to do something which would otherwise be legal.)

Would you suggest that because there are so many place one cannot drink, it should just as well be outlawed? I think not!

Karie - you must take these two subjects at the same level. I am not (nobody has) suggesting that alcohol should be banned. If alcohol could only be drunk in the home then it might as well be banned but that isn't something I'd like to see (although I'm sure that it would show a dramatic reduction in road deaths, violent crime, etc).

As for Cunard - Don 't be so quick to think they aren't in favor of the ban. you see, smoke and cigarettes have always been a mixed deal for property owners, especially hospitality properties.

You don't need to tell me of the problems experienced by the hospitality industry with smoking - I was a Hotel Manager once upon a time. Equally you don't need to tell me that we always had much greater demand for our smoking rooms than we ever did for the non-smoking ones.

[Kindlychap]

There are public areas in England and Wales where drinking is not allowed - the streets of Dunstable are one I believe.

 

Trains become dry when they are heading to football matches - not just the special trains, but all of them. This stops me having my glass of wine on the way home sometimes. I'm not, I can assure you, much of a hooligan. (Too much energy for a start!)

 

There is a terrific creep of restrictive legislation over here. I'm not sure that those of you who live here realise quite how many powers the Police now have....

 

Matthew