Re: Smoking ban in pubs
- From: Cynic <cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:00:23 +0000
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:41:48 +0000, Richard Miller
<richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>How many of the bar staff we are supposedly trying to protect are
>smokers themselves? It is nonsense to claim we are protecting someone
>from passive smoking if they are themselves active smokers.
>
>If you want a smoke-free pub, start one up, campaign for your own local
>to go smoke-free, or petition the chains to open such an establishment.
>If there is as much demand for them as is claimed, as seems to be the
>case, they will be a huge success, so the business case for them must be
>overwhelming. But don't deny other people the right to socialise in an
>atmosphere in which they can smoke.
Quite so. Perhaps pneumania will fall into the category of a
smoking-related disease now that smokers are increasingly forced
outdoors to indulge in their habit. When my wife was in hospital I
was appalled at the number of patients, many obviously quite poorly in
wheel-chairs and carrying drips who were huddled inside an open
bus-shelter in mid-Winter so that they could have a ciggie. I'm sure
that the hospital could have provided at least one warm room where
patients could smoke.
For a country where the government is supposed to value freedom, it
seems to have managed to ban quite a lot of things. All done "for our
own good" of course. I suspect that next on the list will be
foodstuff that is considered unhealthy. The days of the fish & chip
shop may be numbered.
--
Cynic
.
- References:
- Smoking ban in pubs
- From: Peter Mulloy
- Re: Smoking ban in pubs
- From: SteveH
- Smoking ban in pubs
- Prev by Date: Re: Voice Expert needed:
- Next by Date: Re: Smoking ban in pubs
- Previous by thread: Re: Smoking ban in pubs
- Next by thread: Re: Smoking ban in pubs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|