All I have to say is its about time! I fed up of walking down the streets and having people smoking their sh*t and blowing it in my face. I don't understand, I mean if people wanna smoke- more power to them, but please don't blow the smoke in my face, where I'm also at risk of getting all the diseases they are at risk of. OK thats me done

Why should thoughtless selfish smokers get preference over non smokers ?

 

errr... WHAT?

 

Do we have smoking-only areas in bars, clubs, restaurants?

 

Do smokers have smokers-only transport... trains, planes, buses?

 

Are we allowed to smoke in cimemas, theatres?

 

What preferential treatment? Are you mad?

 

Personally, I'd love all non-smokers, for the duration of smoking being allowed in bars/clubs to be BANNED from smoking areas....if you want to descriminate - then let the smokers start descriminating for a change - smoking areas are ALWAYS far, far more populated than non smoking onesd - Rob, it's a fact, accept it..... and there's hardly any deats, if any, for smokers to take in the smoking areas because they are littered with non-smokers... well.... GET OUT! If you don't smoke - bugger off to your own area.

errr... WHAT?

 

Do we have smoking-only areas in bars, clubs, restaurants?

 

Do smokers have smokers-only transport... trains, planes, buses?

 

Are we allowed to smoke in cimemas, theatres?

 

What preferential treatment? Are you mad?

 

Personally, I'd love all non-smokers, for the duration of smoking being allowed in bars/clubs to be BANNED from smoking areas....if you want to descriminate - then let the smokers start descriminating for a change - smoking areas are ALWAYS far, far more populated than non smoking onesd - Rob, it's a fact, accept it..... and there's hardly any deats, if any, for smokers to take in the smoking areas because they are littered with non-smokers... well.... GET OUT! If you don't smoke - bugger off to your own area.

 

but smoking is an unnatural, unnecessary, habit.

 

if a non smoker enters into a smoking area then thats their tough, and they have nothing to moan about. however the places i go too are just as crowded as smoking areas.. in fact more so! yet theres always 1 selfish bstd smoker who lights up in there..

 

russ.... you position is untenable, you have no right to inflict your smoke on us. thats the bottom line.

 

ive already said that smoke to me is as offensive as racist, sexist, homophobic language... because whenever anyone gobbs off or lights up, anyone within range gets a dose wether they want to or not. its simply not on!

errr... WHAT?

 

Do we have smoking-only areas in bars, clubs, restaurants?

 

Do smokers have smokers-only transport... trains, planes, buses?

 

Are we allowed to smoke in cimemas, theatres?

 

What preferential treatment? Are you mad?

 

Personally, I'd love all non-smokers, for the duration of smoking being allowed in bars/clubs to be BANNED from smoking areas....if you want to descriminate - then let the smokers start descriminating for a change - smoking areas are ALWAYS far, far more populated than non smoking onesd - Rob, it's a fact, accept it..... and there's hardly any deats, if any, for smokers to take in the smoking areas because they are littered with non-smokers... well.... GET OUT! If you don't smoke - bugger off to your own area.

 

I will give you an example, today I had to commute to and from Victoria Station in London and in the concourse, area of the ticket office and on the platform there were people polluting my lungs and my throat with their cigarettes, I did not ask them to smoke near me I did not invite them to so why should they be allowed to pollute my space and poison my lungs ? there are not non smoking and smoking areas at Victoria and before you say "well you could have gone somewhere else" if I had I would have missed train information and also got a penalty fare for not buying a ticket

oh Rob, I ignored the smoking is like racism and homophobia comment you made earlier in this thread because I thought you'd said it in a moment of daft-ness - please don't repeat it - I'll lose all respect for you, mate.

 

And non-smoking areas are ALWAYS empty in comparison to the smoking areas... where on earth do you venture to where that isn't the case, Rob? A hospital?

 

As for the nonsensical 'passive smoking' tripe... here's some interesting facts....

 

What is ETS?

ETS is often confused with mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke. ETS is the final stage of tobacco smoke dispersion when it becomes highly diluted in the surrounding air. Although assumed to possess the same properties as mainstream and sidestream smoke, this remains unproven.

 

Are non-smokers at risk from ETS?

This is what everyone wants to know. The truth is that the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs (23 February 2001), Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'

 

Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.

 

Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

 

If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

 

Writing in the Daily Telegraph (24 March 1998), medical editor Dr James Le Fanu replied to claims that he had misled readers about the WHO study by pointing out that the case against passive smoking rests on an absurdity (ie 'that it allegedly causes a type of cancer in non-smokers, adenocarcinoma, known not to be related to smoking'). Referring to an editorial on ETS in The Lancet that identified 'a special risk with adenocarcinoma in contrast to the squamous cancers of the airways seen most often in active smokers', Le Fanu wrote, 'Passive smoking cannot conceivably cause lung cancer.'

 

A further critique of WHO's ETS study, which appeared in the Economist (15 March 1998), pointed out that, 'It is dangerous to become involved in campaigns that are not solidly based on scientific evidence' and added: 'Although passive smoking is unpleasant and irritating for non-smokers, that alone cannot justify banning it in public places.'

 

A year later, in July 1999, in its draft Approved Code of Practice on Smoking at Work, the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Commission declared that, 'Proving beyond reasonable doubt that passive smoking ... was a risk to health is likely to be very difficult, given the state of the scientific evidence.' Interestingly, the UK Government has yet to implement the ACoP, which may have something to do with the lack of conclusive evidence about passive smoking and ill health.

 

Greater London Assembly report

 

Worse was to follow for anti-smoking campaigners. In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and FOREST, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

 

As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray, 'The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.'

 

British Medical Journal report

 

Most recently of all, an explosive new study that seriously questions the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health was published by the British Medical Journal (16 May 2003). According to the study, one of the largest of its kind, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

 

The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the

American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

 

The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

 

No clear connection

 

Perhaps admitting defeat on the link between ETS and lung cancer, the anti-smokers now argue that passive smoking is responsible for a whole range of other problems, including the rising number of asthmatics. Incredibly, smoking is being held responsible for the increased prevalence of a range of illnesses over a period when the prevalence of smoking has dramatically declined and the places where people smoke have been increasingly restricted.

 

The simple fact is that in terms of establishing a clear causal connection between exposure to ETS and illness in non-smokers, the anti-smoking industry has continually failed to prove its case.

 

Needless to say. none of the above has deterred the anti-smoking lobby. Indeed, the British Medical Association, aided and abetted by ASH, is now claiming (November 2002) that 'There is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke.'

 

While it is perfectly legitimate for people to express a dislike of the smell of tobacco smoke, the distortion of scientific, statistical, methodological, and research procedure to provide a medical justification for banning smoking in public places is not acceptable, least of all as a pretext for removing the rights of 13 million British adults.

 

oh Rob, I ignored the smoking is like racism and homophobia comment you made earlier in this thread because I thought you'd said it in a moment of daft-ness - please don't repeat it - I'll lose all respect for you, mate.

 

And non-smoking areas are ALWAYS empty in comparison to the smoking areas... where on earth do you venture to where that isn't the case, Rob? A hospital?

 

As for the nonsensical 'passive smoking' tripe... here's some interesting facts....

 

What is ETS?

ETS is often confused with mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke. ETS is the final stage of tobacco smoke dispersion when it becomes highly diluted in the surrounding air. Although assumed to possess the same properties as mainstream and sidestream smoke, this remains unproven.

 

Are non-smokers at risk from ETS?

This is what everyone wants to know. The truth is that the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs (23 February 2001), Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'

 

Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.

 

Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

 

If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

 

Writing in the Daily Telegraph (24 March 1998), medical editor Dr James Le Fanu replied to claims that he had misled readers about the WHO study by pointing out that the case against passive smoking rests on an absurdity (ie 'that it allegedly causes a type of cancer in non-smokers, adenocarcinoma, known not to be related to smoking'). Referring to an editorial on ETS in The Lancet that identified 'a special risk with adenocarcinoma in contrast to the squamous cancers of the airways seen most often in active smokers', Le Fanu wrote, 'Passive smoking cannot conceivably cause lung cancer.'

 

A further critique of WHO's ETS study, which appeared in the Economist (15 March 1998), pointed out that, 'It is dangerous to become involved in campaigns that are not solidly based on scientific evidence' and added: 'Although passive smoking is unpleasant and irritating for non-smokers, that alone cannot justify banning it in public places.'

 

A year later, in July 1999, in its draft Approved Code of Practice on Smoking at Work, the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Commission declared that, 'Proving beyond reasonable doubt that passive smoking ... was a risk to health is likely to be very difficult, given the state of the scientific evidence.' Interestingly, the UK Government has yet to implement the ACoP, which may have something to do with the lack of conclusive evidence about passive smoking and ill health.

 

Greater London Assembly report

 

Worse was to follow for anti-smoking campaigners. In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and FOREST, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

 

As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray, 'The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.'

 

British Medical Journal report

 

Most recently of all, an explosive new study that seriously questions the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health was published by the British Medical Journal (16 May 2003). According to the study, one of the largest of its kind, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

 

The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the

American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

 

The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

 

No clear connection

 

Perhaps admitting defeat on the link between ETS and lung cancer, the anti-smokers now argue that passive smoking is responsible for a whole range of other problems, including the rising number of asthmatics. Incredibly, smoking is being held responsible for the increased prevalence of a range of illnesses over a period when the prevalence of smoking has dramatically declined and the places where people smoke have been increasingly restricted.

 

The simple fact is that in terms of establishing a clear causal connection between exposure to ETS and illness in non-smokers, the anti-smoking industry has continually failed to prove its case.

 

Needless to say. none of the above has deterred the anti-smoking lobby. Indeed, the British Medical Association, aided and abetted by ASH, is now claiming (November 2002) that 'There is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke.'

 

While it is perfectly legitimate for people to express a dislike of the smell of tobacco smoke, the distortion of scientific, statistical, methodological, and research procedure to provide a medical justification for banning smoking in public places is not acceptable, least of all as a pretext for removing the rights of 13 million British adults.

 

 

All very fascinating Russ but even if they don't give us cancer they still give us coughs, irritable eyes and throat, smelly clothes and so on, you can't deny that no matter what articles you dig up now I did not request coughs, I did not ask for irritable eyes and throat etc so why should they be given to me and forced upon me by a selfish inconsiderate minority at a railway station or whatever ???

I have no objection to smokers smoking in the privacy of their own home but I object to smokers forcing their smoke onto everyone else whether they like it or not in such situations today like in the railway station

I did not request coughs, I did not ask for irritable eyes and throat etc so why should they be given to me and forced upon me by a selfish inconsiderate minority at a railway station or whatever ???

 

well, I don't ask for things to be spilled on me, request my toes be trampled on, for me to be showered with spittle, for my eardrums and head to be banging like a drum when I travel on public transport or eat in a restaurant.... yet the inconsiderate minority who selfishly inflict their kids on us in public environments still appear to be able to do so..... same thing, really.

In a previous job I used to share a small office with 3 other people who were all chain smokers. I was given no choice, except like it or lump it. The constant drift of cigarette smoke, wisping its way from the ashtray into my eyes used to irritate me every day. My complaints fell on deaf ears as I was in the minority. Did they think about my health, the smell of smoke on my clothes every day, my coughing and runny eyes, NO, they couldn’t care less. If I got up and went for a walk to clear my eyes I got into trouble for skiving.

 

A good few years later smoking was banned in the office, hurrah. No more itchy eyes, no more smelly clothes, fresh air,well apart from the constant moaning from the 3 smokers who complained about their civil rights to smoke. Funny how they never considered my civil rights not to smoke.

 

But wait a minute they got to go outside for a fly puff,and they got away with it,whereas before I didn’t. So don’t tell me smokers have it tough, non smokers tolerate smokers bad habits more than you think. For decades we have put up with it. But now that smoking is being banned from public buildings etc the smokers are taking up the fight.

 

Very few smokers ask if its ok to smoke in mixed company,they just light up and basicly say “sod you†to the rest of you.

 

I have no objection to people exercising their personal choice to smoke, just not near me, please.

 

Interesting post Russt on ETS.

 

I don't like to be in smokers area because it means I have to wash my clothes afterwards.

But very interesting to see there might not be an evidence to support current beliefs around passive smoking.

All very fascinating Russ but even if they don't give us cancer they still give us coughs, irritable eyes and throat, smelly clothes and so on, you can't deny that no matter what articles you dig up now I did not request coughs, I did not ask for irritable eyes and throat etc so why should they be given to me and forced upon me by a selfish inconsiderate minority at a railway station or whatever ???

 

What about bars and clubs then..? People should definitely have the rights to smoke there as far as I'm concerned, and that is essentially what the original argument is..

 

No, in fact the real original argument is is that fukkin' politicians are setting up one rule for you and me and another for themselves, and THAT is not on....

 

Fukkin' Nanny State this is, bars an clubs ARE ADULT ENVIRONMENTS!!! Therefore one should expect ADULT ACTIVITIES LIKE SMOKING AND DRINKING to take place in those environments... End of story....

 

Railway stations and workplaces are a different matter...

What about bars and clubs then..? People should definitely have the rights to smoke there as far as I'm concerned, and that is essentially what the original argument is..

 

No, in fact the real original argument is is that fukkin' politicians are setting up one rule for you and me and another for themselves, and THAT is not on....

 

Fukkin' Nanny State this is, bars an clubs ARE ADULT ENVIRONMENTS!!! Therefore one should expect ADULT ACTIVITIES LIKE SMOKING AND DRINKING to take place in those environments... End of story....

 

Railway stations and workplaces are a different matter...

 

I agree that it takes the p*** that politicians are allowed to still smoke after the smoking ban just like it took the p*** that ministers were exempt from the hosepipe ban and I found it a real pisstake that Bliar was allowed perfectly manicured lawns all summer and had sprinkler on several hours a day while the resrt of us were being threatened with standpipes, politicians for me are parasites and leeches who think they are above the law

 

I am in favour of a complete ban on smoking in places like shopping centres, railway stations, restaurants and so on, pubs if there were 2 seperate bars 1 for smokers and 1 for non smokers then I would tolerate the situation, like say the saloon bar is for smokers and the lounge bar is for non smokers and are divided by closed doorways etc

oh Rob, I ignored the smoking is like racism and homophobia comment you made earlier in this thread because I thought you'd said it in a moment of daft-ness - please don't repeat it - I'll lose all respect for you, mate.

 

And non-smoking areas are ALWAYS empty in comparison to the smoking areas... where on earth do you venture to where that isn't the case, Rob? A hospital?

 

As for the nonsensical 'passive smoking' tripe... here's some interesting facts....

 

 

 

righteo matey.... look.... being forced to breathe in other peoples smoke is offensive, it IS as offensive as any vile diatribe uttered by the ignorant bigots. now you might not like it but thats how i see it... wether or not it is harmful to my health, I DONT LIKE IT, I HATE CIGARETTE SMOKE.... lol.. it DOES effect my eyes, throat, nose etc... and i dont find the smell a pleasant experience, seeing as we are designed by mother nature to breathe fresh air i dont think that its unreasonable for me to object to it.

 

utter bollox about non smoking areas... lol..

 

last night me n clare went out to our music quiz, in our room which was a smoke if you like area, there was 20 people.... only 1 lit up twice in 2 hours!! ... this is not unusual!

 

im totally unconvinced that there is no health risk from continuous passive smoking, its a bloody poison that contains dioxins!!!

 

this argument is bizarre..... you are being a typical bigoted smoker... 'ill do wtf i want, where i want, and fcuk you'... then try and justify your actions ignoring the opinions of non smokers as you just dont want to hear them, or accept the health risks... russ, smoking is offensive, deal with it m8 :)

Rob...

 

I suggest you venture out to some bars and clubs tonight, and see the marked difference in population in the smoking and non smoking areas, then come back to me on Monday..... I think you'll see that I'm right, mate....

 

and as for being a bigot and saying fcuk you to non smokers - absolute rubbish - I believe in freedom for all. OK, smoke DOES offend non-smokers, I was a non-smoker long enough to vouch for that - HOWEVER, what kind of person are you, Rob, to demand and pronounce what other people can and cannot do? Even when I was a non-smoker, I wouldn't DREAM of being so self righteous and pompous. There are many, many things harmful to my health that I DO NOT LIKE (uppercase) - but some things you have to accept, mate, like it or not... car fumes, jet engine fumes, crop sprays, farmers spreading pig $h!t, Conservative voters and children in restaurants among them - but hey - some things you just HAVE to accept because this is a world for EVERYONE - and my rights as a smoker are absolutely equal to yours as a non-smoker.

 

The smoking areas in pubs and clubs SHOULD be made completely airtight - surely it's far easier and cheaper than making the whole place non-smoking and facing the very likely risk of all your custom dropping away. And there's even smoking booths you can get now which are incredible - you smoke under them and all the noxious fumes are sucked up into an overhead pipe.... there's no smell whatsoever. Surely this could have been an option?

 

As for nobody smoking in bars from now on - it aint gonna happen - there's plenty of publicans who scoff at this law and will willingly break it - and these are the ones who will continue to see their business tick over - not the ones who follow this most draconian of laws set by a government seemingly wantonly flushing away their core voters.

Edited December 8, 200618 yr by russt68

to further my point about Bliar flushing away his core voters... you go to any Labour stronghold, in Wales or up North, and take a tour around the Labour Workingmen's Clubs...in fact, ALL the clubs and pubs.... traditionally rammed with Labour voters... and find out what will sway their vote at the next election - the Government stopping them having a fag with their pint / game of bingo or the escalating violence in Iraq - I think you'll be surprised at the feedback, Rob.....

 

This is Labour's worst-ever decision if they want to stay in power. I know the local Labour clubs down here, 2 of them, have cancelled their annual subscription fees to the Party over this very matter this past month (my Uncle is chairman in one of them) - whereas they contributed many thousands a year to the party, they now pay the smallest fee they have to for using the Labour name - a nominal fee of £10 a year.

hi russ..

 

im not overly fussed about pub smoke tbh, i do accept that pubs are likely to be smokey, i hardend my attitude on this thread as thats what we both did! lol.

 

ive always said that im not bothered about what anybody does as long as its legal and doesnt offend others... you can smoke all you want to do, just dont blow it on me!... :P

 

 

Rob...

 

I suggest you venture out to some bars and clubs tonight, and see the marked difference in population in the smoking and non smoking areas, then come back to me on Monday..... I think you'll see that I'm right, mate....

I go to clubs at least twice a week and I see that they are the vast MINORITY and out of the 20 odd people I usually go with only two of them smoke and when they're actually in there they may only have the odd one or two, and as for people I don't know around there you see very few of them doing it. I think you're seeing it the way that you WANT to see it rather than the way that it actually is as you're a smoker yourself and I could imagine you to be one of those people who asks some random person 'have you got a cigarette?' and look suprised when they say they don't smoke with the perception that everyone smokes. -_- Even so what do people think about when they go out? Drink, mates, and music and smoking is like it or not usually at the back of a lot of people's mind for the night as they're thinking about other things meanwhile in a pub fair enough some people like a fag and a pint as it's part of the culture, sure you do get 'social smokers' but they're not doing that just because they want to smoke, they do it because they don't want to seem like the odd one out and want to do it because all their friends are doing it. My main point is though that going to clubs doesn't really revolve around smoking and I'm sure that they'll not be much difference to how many people go to them after the ban has taken place and if there is then I'll come here and say I was wrong but I doubt it and hope for my sanity that it doesn't happen as my student union being empty this year due to them not listening to what the students actually want has made that place a lot less fun to go to as it lacks atmosphere and so we go elsewhere.

I go to clubs at least twice a week and I see that they are the vast MINORITY and out of the 20 odd people I usually go with only two of them smoke ......

 

..... people like a fag and a pint as it's part of the culture, sure you do get 'social smokers' but they're not doing that just because they want to smoke, they do it because they don't want to seem like the odd one out and want to do it because all their friends are doing it.

 

eh? Surely a huge contradiction.... and the people who smoke in bars... do they automatically STOP when they enter a club? Does 'social smoking' cease to exist when people enter clubs?

 

What nonsense...

 

For one thing, if you're talking about dance clubs - a huge percentage of the people in these smoke because of the amount of drugs consumed in these clubs as opposed to others - drugs have a tendency to make smokers smoke far more and non-smokers crave a fag. I've worked in clubs of all types for the best part of 20 years - what you're claiming simply isn't the case, Grandwicky - as with pubs, non-smokers in clubs are the minority - maybe not amongst YOUR social group, but as a whole, non-smokers are still a clubbing minority.

 

Now, as for your bizarre assumption that I'd go up and ask a stranger for a cigarette - err..... I would never DREAM of doing such a vulgar, crass thing. Yeuch. Your 'assumption' is three miles off the mark.

 

At least.

 

 

ive always said that im not bothered about what anybody does as long as its legal and doesnt offend others... you can smoke all you want to do, just dont blow it on me!... :P

 

...but Rob, some of the best stuff to smoke.. well, it ISN'T strictly legal ;) :o

...but Rob, some of the best stuff to smoke.. well, it ISN'T strictly legal ;) :o

 

 

he he....