Three reasons to hate cameron, red light jumper, smoker AND a tory!

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 25, 11:17�am, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>Funny thing about the smoking ban....everybody saying how their
>>clothes always smelt of smoke after coming out of the pub. It never
>>stopped them going in in the first place though.
>>
>>
>>
>>It didn't stop the people who complained but it did stop those who did not
>>go to the pub because they did not like the smoke. Doh!
>>
>>But......the smoking ban was and is far more to do with the working
>>conditions of the bar staff.
>>
>>pk
>
>
> P'raps it's me but what 's wrong with having some "smoking" pubs and
> some "non-smoking" pubs, then it's down to the individual where he
> wishes to drink AND work. Simple really, all it would take is a little
> sign on the door, not millions wasted on policing this ban.

Are "millions" *being* "wasted" on it?

 

[Dan Gregory]

[email protected] wrote:

> Funny thing about the smoking ban....everybody saying how their
> clothes always smelt of smoke after coming out of the pub. It never
> stopped them going in in the first place though.
I stopped going to many pubs for just that reason....

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Dan Gregory
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Funny thing about the smoking ban....everybody saying how their
> > clothes always smelt of smoke after coming out of the pub. It never
> > stopped them going in in the first place though.
> I stopped going to many pubs for just that reason....
>
I tend to avoid pubs that have loud music or large video screens. In
fact these days I tend to avoid pubs altogether because I don't drink
alcohol, but I do tend to drop cigarette ash all over myself when I'm
sat at the computer.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, marc
[email protected] says...

> Why do smokers never see their detritus as litter, is it because smoking
> is an inherently selfish action in itself?
>
I smoke, I don't litter and I object strongly to anyone who does. I've
been known to give people a hard time for smoking where it's not
permitted, and I don't assume it's OK to smoke when there are other
people in the room just because it's my house. Stop making broad
generalisations.

 

[marc]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, marc
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Why do smokers never see their detritus as litter, is it because smoking
>> is an inherently selfish action in itself?
>>
> I smoke, I don't litter and I object strongly to anyone who does. I've
> been known to give people a hard time for smoking where it's not
> permitted, and I don't assume it's OK to smoke when there are other
> people in the room just because it's my house. Stop making broad
> generalisations.

No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet it
detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish act?

As to not littering, I doubt your claim, in that I'm sure that you have
discarded a *** end, match or *** packet tear strip because there wasn't
a ashtray/litter bin available.

 

[Alex Potter]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:58:55 +0000, marc wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> As to not littering, I doubt your claim, in that I'm sure that you have
> discarded a *** end, match or *** packet tear strip because there wasn't
> a ashtray/litter bin available.

I can't be the only one to put such detritus into my pockets, without
fail.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

 

[Martin Dann]

Alex Potter wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:58:55 +0000, marc wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> As to not littering, I doubt your claim, in that I'm sure that you have
>> discarded a *** end, match or *** packet tear strip because there wasn't
>> a ashtray/litter bin available.
>
> I can't be the only one to put such detritus into my pockets, without
> fail.
>

I suspect it is a bit like RLJ cyclists, people only notice the smokers
that do litter. Having said that, a large proportion of litter on
footpaths does seem to be discarded *** ends and chewing gum.

There is a sign up in one of the smoking areas where I work:
"When the floor is full, please use the bins."

 

[Alex Potter]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:11:27 +0000, Martin Dann wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I suspect it is a bit like RLJ cyclists, people only notice the smokers
> that do litter. Having said that, a large proportion of litter on
> footpaths does seem to be discarded *** ends and chewing gum.

I think you may be right. I /never/ RLJ, either.

The discarded *** ends wind me up, but the chewing gum more so.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

 

[Andrew Price]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:40:42 GMT, Alex Potter
<[email protected]> wrote:

[---]

>The discarded *** ends wind me up, but the chewing gum more so.

Likewise - I can understand why the revolting stuff was banned for so
long in Singapore.

 

[Mark]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:09:37 -0000, "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>Funny thing about the smoking ban....everybody saying how their
>>clothes always smelt of smoke after coming out of the pub. It never
>>stopped them going in in the first place though.
>
>It stopped me going to the pub. I hated being in a pub due to the cigarette
>smoke. It stopped me going pretty much. I venture into such establishments
>more often these days.

Me too. However the worst place was restaurants IME. I've had many
meals ruined by someone lighting up right next to me. And don't
mention "non smoking" areas - they were a sick joke.

M

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> Funny thing about the smoking ban....everybody saying how their
> clothes always smelt of smoke after coming out of the pub. It never
> stopped them going in in the first place though.

You assume that because I went to the pub occasionally then there was no
effect on my behaviour, but in fact there was. On numerous occasions I
didn't go to the pub because the tradeoff between the social occasion
and the pong was the other way about.

> Another Labour Nanny
> State (TM) device to get us all under the thumb. I don't smoke, but
> this ban went so far over the top.

Nope, it was bloody great. In the time between the Scottish law coming
in and the English catching up I really disliked forays south of the
border that involved pubs and restaurants. When we're off to NL I
really wish they'd get with the program too.

While I respect the rights of people to smoke, it is well below my
respect for my right /not/ to smoke passively in public places.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mark]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:58:55 +0000, marc
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, marc
>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>> Why do smokers never see their detritus as litter, is it because smoking
>>> is an inherently selfish action in itself?
>>>
>> I smoke, I don't litter and I object strongly to anyone who does. I've
>> been known to give people a hard time for smoking where it's not
>> permitted, and I don't assume it's OK to smoke when there are other
>> people in the room just because it's my house. Stop making broad
>> generalisations.
>
>No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet it
>detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish act?

I would argue that the only one getting any "benefit" from smoking is
the tobacco companies. The smoker gets no benefit except to ward off
withdrawl symptons. Otherwise you could argue that junkies get
benefit from heroin.

M.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Mark <[email protected]>:
>Me too. However the worst place was restaurants IME. I've had many
>meals ruined by someone lighting up right next to me. And don't
>mention "non smoking" areas - they were a sick joke.

"Like a no-pissing section in a swimming pool."
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Chedday, January.

 

[marc]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Mark <[email protected]>:
>> Me too. However the worst place was restaurants IME. I've had many
>> meals ruined by someone lighting up right next to me. And don't
>> mention "non smoking" areas - they were a sick joke.
>
> "Like a no-pissing section in a swimming pool."

always liked the French version of it....

Smmoooking or non Smoooking?

Non Smoooking seive vou plaise ( sp?)


they pick up a Pas de fumer sign and take you to a table , place sign on
table!

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, marc
[email protected] says...

> No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet it
> detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish act?

Apparently I'm impossible to live with if I don't smoke, so I selflessly
continue.
>
> As to not littering, I doubt your claim, in that I'm sure that you have
> discarded a *** end, match or *** packet tear strip because there wasn't
> a ashtray/litter bin available.
>
Litter goes in pockets if there isn't a bin around. I carry a small tin
for my Rizlas and filters - butts go in there.

 

[marc]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, marc
> [email protected] says...
>
>> No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet it
>> detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish act?
>
> Apparently I'm impossible to live with if I don't smoke, so I selflessly
> continue.
>> As to not littering, I doubt your claim, in that I'm sure that you have
>> discarded a *** end, match or *** packet tear strip because there wasn't
>> a ashtray/litter bin available.
>>
> Litter goes in pockets if there isn't a bin around. I carry a small tin
> for my Rizlas and filters - butts go in there.

I your case I retract my moan and apologise. I'm willing to grant almost
anyone anythign today, got a new job!

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
marc <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet
> it detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish
> act?

In my local inSainsbury's they've recently reorganised the thing so that one
till is for people buying tabs and the other is for pikeys buying lottery
tickets. These means that the prole-taxpayers don't have to queue for ages
behind those terrible smokers who agonise for hours about whether to buy
Marlboros, Bensons or those cheap ones made from dried camel dung.

Or perhaps it was the other way round...

(Goes for *** break)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
If you want a bicycle, buy a bicycle. If you want something
that folds, buy a deckchair.

 

[JNugent]

Dave Larrington wrote:

> marc <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

>>No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet
>>it detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish
>>act?

> In my local inSainsbury's they've recently reorganised the thing so that one
> till is for people buying tabs and the other is for pikeys buying lottery
> tickets.

Surely those two groups are the same people?

> These means that the prole-taxpayers don't have to queue for ages
> behind those terrible smokers who agonise for hours about whether to buy
> Marlboros, Bensons or those cheap ones made from dried camel dung.

> Or perhaps it was the other way round...
> (Goes for *** break)

It would make more sense to have at least one till at which both
tobacco AND lottery tickets cannot be bought. Either that or (at least
two) only one where neither thing can be bought. Let them all delay
each other and let those of us who just want The Times get served less
slowly.

 

[JNugent]

JNugent wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>
>> marc <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
>> tell us:
>
>
>>> No-one else gets any benefit from smoking apart from the smoker , yet
>>> it detracts from others benefit, how else do you define a selfish
>>> act?
>
>
>> In my local inSainsbury's they've recently reorganised the thing so
>> that one till is for people buying tabs and the other is for pikeys
>> buying lottery tickets.
>
>
> Surely those two groups are the same people?
>
>> These means that the prole-taxpayers don't have to queue for ages
>> behind those terrible smokers who agonise for hours about whether to
>> buy Marlboros, Bensons or those cheap ones made from dried camel dung.
>
>
>> Or perhaps it was the other way round...
>> (Goes for *** break)
>
>
> It would make more sense to have at least one till at which both tobacco
> AND lottery tickets cannot be bought. Either that or (at least two) only
> one where neither thing can be bought. Let them all delay each other and
> let those of us who just want The Times get served less slowly.

There's an aberrant 'n'in there somewhere, IYKWIM.