smoking indoors license

tbh if you dont like the smoke, gtf out and go to the park?

it should be up to the owner/manager of the place if you can/cant smoke

If any staff or customer doesnt like it, they are free to **** off..
 
the anti smoker brigade make me lol, you don't 'have' to breath 2nd hand smoke, just go somewhere else... it's like visiting the south pole then crying like a girl because it's too cold ;)

i had some woman complain other day about my smoke in the high street, the crazy thing is, she came and stood next to me, i had chosen some free space to do what I enjoy... i politely explained this and she was well miffed.
 
Flukester said:
the anti smoker brigade make me lol, you don't 'have' to breath 2nd hand smoke, just go somewhere else... it's like visiting the south pole then crying like a girl because it's too cold ;)

i had some woman complain other day about my smoke in the high street, the crazy thing is, she came and stood next to me, i had chosen some free space to do what I enjoy... i politely explained this and she was well miffed.
Click to expand...

thats why i tell people to **** off..

a few people act like there going to do something, but only like 1 in 50 try anything
 
I remember seeing an article on tv about this welsh couple, having been outraged by the smoking ban they converted the conservatory in their house into a pub. It had taps, stools, the works and as it was a private residence and no one was charged for the drinks it was perfectly legal. I'm pretty certain everyone chipped in for the kegs and that.

Probably unrelated really, but I found it amusing regardless.
 
platinum87 said:
tbh if you dont like the smoke, gtf out and go to the park?

it should be up to the owner/manager of the place if you can/cant smoke

If any staff or customer doesnt like it, they are free to **** off..
Click to expand...

This thread may degenerate into a pro vs anti smoking argument very soon....

My understanding was the main reason was that smoking ban was for the benefit of employees in workplaces (which includes as a consequence private clubs, pubs etc).

You cannot say if the staff don;t like it they would "be free to **** off" as this would, for example, limit employment to smokers in these establishment would be direct discrimination which is also illegal.

This debate does tend to polarise opinion. The one quoted about is a typical selfish smoker "gtf out and go to the park". There will be some self-righteous non-smokers too.
 
snail1 said:
You cannot say if the staff don;t like it they would "be free to **** off" as this would, for example, limit employment to smokers in these establishment would be direct discrimination which is also illegal.

This debate does tend to polarise opinion. The one quoted about is a typical selfish smoker "gtf out and go to the park". There will be some self-righteous non-smokers too.
Click to expand...

thats not discrimination.

like it should purely be up to the manager/etc... if they dont like or do like smoking its up to them...

if you dont smoke and want a job, its gonna be a choice?

otherwise hardcore vegetarians are gonna whine that your serving meat and killing animals on site???

should we ban that too? etc. it will never end, after a while you gotta tell people to **** off or punch em in the face.
 
platinum87 said:
tbh if you dont like the smoke, gtf out and go to the park?

it should be up to the owner/manager of the place if you can/cant smoke

If any staff or customer doesnt like it, they are free to **** off..
Click to expand...

It is low lifes like you which meant the ban had to come into place. In a respectable society, considerate smokers would ask the people around them if it was ok to smoke or better still walk outside to smoke anyway.

But since most smokers seem to be arrogant selfish fools then the ban had to come in to force this behavior from the Government level.

If the attitude of smokers doesn't change then I wont be surprised if an outright ban on smoking is imposed in the (distant) future.
 
Last edited:
Magical Trevor said:
Do they still have smoking rooms in airports?
Click to expand...

They had nothing at Gatwick when I flew from there last month. As soon as you go through the gates, your buggered.

Bournemouth Airport does however have a small wooden building built onto the lounge with 3 inch gaps between the wooden planks so you can smoke there.
 
platinum87 said:
thats not discrimination.

like it should purely be up to the manager/etc... if they dont like or do like smoking its up to them...

if you dont smoke and want a job, its gonna be a choice?

otherwise hardcore vegetarians are gonna whine that your serving meat and killing animals on site???

should we ban that too? etc. it will never end, after a while you gotta tell people to **** off or punch em in the face.
Click to expand...

Vegetarians don't force me to eat their salad after they've chewed it up and spat it out.

It's clear you're just doing this for the attention, or Teh Lulz, or whatever... btu stop now. You're not big or clever.
 
platinum87 said:
thats not discrimination.

like it should purely be up to the manager/etc... if they dont like or do like smoking its up to them...

if you dont smoke and want a job, its gonna be a choice?

otherwise hardcore vegetarians are gonna whine that your serving meat and killing animals on site???

should we ban that too? etc. it will never end, after a while you gotta tell people to **** off or punch em in the face.
Click to expand...

Eating is a necessity.. Smoking is not. Also, you're really going to punch someone in the face for asking you to stop something that is banned?
 
platinum87 said:
thats not discrimination.

like it should purely be up to the manager/etc... if they dont like or do like smoking its up to them...

if you dont smoke and want a job, its gonna be a choice?

otherwise hardcore vegetarians are gonna whine that your serving meat and killing animals on site???

should we ban that too? etc. it will never end, after a while you gotta tell people to **** off or punch em in the face.
Click to expand...

We are going to have agree to differ I think. I believe that only offering jobs to people who are happy to work would be discrimination. I do understand your point about vegetarians, however, this is a personal preference for eating and does not affect others. The crucial difference is that people would be made to choose to work in smoke-filled places which are deterimintal to health and you are asking people to select jobs on this basis. This is where the discrimination arises.

It is a moot point anyway as the law is clear at the moment.
 
D.P. said:
It is low lifes like you which meant the ban had to come into place. In a respectable society, considerate smokers would ask the people around them if it was ok to smoke or better still walk outside to smoke anyway.

But since most smokers seem to be arrogant selfish fools then the ban had to come in to force this behavior from the Government level.

If the attitude of smokers doesn't change then I wont be surprised if an outright ban on smoking is imposed in the (distant) future.
Click to expand...

i dont smoke, i used to smoke, and i did ask if it was ok, because im not unreasonable..


and btw, when i did smoke i always prefered to be outside...

hell even in my own house i went on the balcony to smoke when no-one else is in the house, just because i didnt like the smell and smoke lingering, even when i was smoking!!
 
Last edited:
Meloco said:
Eating is a necessity.. Smoking is not. Also, you're really going to punch someone in the face for asking you to stop something that is banned?
Click to expand...

no...

ive made myself clear that the managers/owners should decide, and normal members of the public have the choice to go into the bar or not...

theres nothing wrong with that.. complaining that you want to work in a bar and using smoking that was is like.. complaining about aliens stealing your jobs
 
People in my office complain when they want to go outside and smoke. They act like it's some kind of disability and that they should be entitled to wander out whenever they like for 10 minutes at a time. They're not allowed though, so they sit and whinge like hungry babies.

So if they can whinge about wanting to go out and smoke, i'm going to whinge about wanting to go inside to not smoke.
 
snail1 said:
I believe that only offering jobs to people who are happy to work would be discrimination.
Click to expand...

words escape me

snail1 said:
people would be made to choose to work in smoke-filled places which are deterimintal to health and you are asking people to select jobs on this basis. This is where the discrimination arises.
Click to expand...

what about other dangerous jobs?

if i call up, and when they go sign here to waiver etc... and im like im not ok with it... and then i still demand to work?

ofcourse, where there are children, i would agree with the ban, but not in places where you must be 18 to enter

DampCat said:
People in my office complain when they want to go outside and smoke. They act like it's some kind of disability and that they should be entitled to wander out whenever they like for 10 minutes at a time. They're not allowed though, so they sit and whinge like hungry babies.

So if they can whinge about wanting to go out and smoke, i'm going to whinge about wanting to go inside to not smoke.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
platinum87 said:
no...

ive made myself clear that the managers/owners should decide, and normal members of the public have the choice to go into the bar or not...

theres nothing wrong with that.. complaining that you want to work in a bar and using smoking that was is like.. complaining about aliens stealing your jobs
Click to expand...

It might just be me but huh? That's a bit of an odd analogy. You'd have a better analogy if you had the option of a job but taking it would be likely to impact on your health and would smell foul. Someone taking your job is rather different to that scenario, you might still have reason for complaint but it isn't the same problem.

If we lived in a world where anyone had a choice of jobs then it would be fairer to allow people to work in a smoky environment, this would be a choice (albeit there is the argument that sometimes you have to protect people for their own good). Presently it isn't always a realistic choice, unfortunately principles don't pay the bills as well as wages do.
 
The law has been passed so all this bickering is a waste of time and bandwidth; let's talk about this plane that is on a conveyor belt ........
 
I'm pleased I reported said pub and I'm even more pleased the landlord was fined for breaking the law - what gives him the right?

I'm also very happy to be tied into the "anti smoking" brigade that some people like to call us.
I'm an ex-smoker, haven't smoked for 4 years now.
So why do I complain?
Why do I not just "live and let live"?
Because the law states that if I walk into a pub I walk into a smoke free ewnvironment.
Why the hell should I have to pick and choose which pub I go into so that I don't get second hand smoke down my throat and come out smelling of ****?

"Oh but what about my rights" the "smoking brigade" and general "Oh yes, let people do what the like brigade" say.
Rubbish - as a smoker you have the right to kill yourself and make yourself smell like ****, you do not have the right to do that to others.
So feel free to smoke in your home and feel free to smoke in the street (for now), you wanted your rights well these are them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom