Metropol

Hymagumba wrote:

miss hellfire wrote:Talking of hair.. What is going on with yours Pete? I thought you had got yourself a haircut. Judging by your avatar i have to ask " which hair did they cut?". You really must get yourself to Kent and allow me to butcher it properly for you.

tsk

Sorry, i realise why you are expressing annoyance. Wrong thread. I've literally just found whole new thread dedicated to your new avatar.
Starting a thread like that is just cruel.

I know. I'd have expected better from you Lorna. There has been a thread on my fringe since last night and yet you troll this greatly important moral discussion with it.

Pookie wrote:

cdd wrote:The argument that it affects other people is, obviously, the reason why this ban is being considred.

Oh if only that were true. The truth involves a game that governments continually play. It's called "use the right hand to whip them up into a frenzy about an issue that doesn't really matter, then they wont see what the other hand's doing". As smoking in public has decreased, asthma has increased, traffic on the other hand has increased. Go figure.

Oh and I forgot to add that while all this is going on, the government get to look like they're progressive and care.

Pookie wrote:I believe the usual source used for irradiating fruit and veg is Cobalt 60. The process doesn't contaminate the produce, but it does mean that it has a longer shelf life, hence my scepticism at the reference to "fresh fruit and veg".

It's labelled though. If you get it and you don't want it it's your own silly fault.

Of COURSE you could argue that everything is irradiated with cosmic rays every day, but where's the fun in that?

Hmmm, Maybe if doctors irradiated people dying of lung cancer, they would live longer. And as long as they're clearly labelled there shouldn't be a problem!

that statement makes no sense.

I could buy rat poison and eat if I want to. It's clearly labeled it's rat poison.

Pookie wrote:Hmmm, Maybe if doctors irradiated people dying of lung cancer, they would live longer. And as long as they're clearly labelled there shouldn't be a problem!

Errr!! Not sure what your arguement is there pookie. Cigarettes are clearly labelled about the harm they do and have done for some considerable time. Actually most things that are bad for you carry warnings.. E.g this product contains nuts or suitable for vegetarians.. I could go on but i won't.

Errm, I wasn't actually being serious. Never mind.

nidave wrote:I dont have an issue with smokers, just as I dont have an Issue with people who drink loads - I have an issue when it affects (or should that be effects) me persionaly. I hate being somewhere where others smoke, it causes my bf to have bad asthma attacks.
What people do to themselves is thier probelm, I dont want to dictate to people, just leave me out of it!

In the first instance, I wouldn't choose to smoke in the company of an asthmatic (my sister, for example); nor do I feel the need to light-up whilst sitting in a waiting room or walking through a shopping centre.

However, I see no good reason why bars large enough to accomodate a separate area shouldn't have a smoker's enclosure, complete with airconditioning. Smoking at the bar is admittedly unfair on bar staff, but a separate, unattended room would seem to be a sensible and equitable solution.

Businesses (like rural and town pubs in Ireland in the last 12 months) should know well enough that smoker's money is as good as anyone else's. Ask those who went out of business (as their core customers decided to drink at home) how they feel about a "blanket" ban and the subsequent criminilisation of those licencees who turned a blind eye.

Unsurprisingly, Scotland and now the rest of the UK is pushing through this legislation AHEAD of the report commissioned on a one-year study in Ireland, post-legislation. I bet will make for interesting reading.

marksi wrote:Great example Dave. Waiting to see how the smokers work their rights argument around that...

"Smokers" being directed at me; do you really think that little of me Mark? I have MANY times acknowledged my duty of care for others, indicating that I would never dream of imposing smoke on someone who asked me not to. If I were to suggest ONE bar in TEN had a private room in the rear so that smokers could avoid stepping outside you would still have a complaint.

Well I'm fed up apologising, especially in light of your use of the Martin"..."Anderson ellipses. Get off your high horse as it really doesn't suit you.

The term "smokers" was aimed at anyone on here who smokes to be honest. You in a bad mood then Gavin?

marksi wrote:The term "smokers" was aimed at anyone on here who smokes to be honest. You in a bad mood then Gavin?

As a matter of fact, yes, I was in a foul mood when I responded to that. And for that I apologise.

Irrespective of my mood, however, no one likes to be made to feel a pariah, and that is sadly what it comes down to.

I might even give up smoking.

We'll see.