Despite their name public houses are not infact public houses, they are private premises. The landlord/landlady decides who may or may not drink on the premises, yet New Liebour have pushed though laws banning people from smoking on private property.
The next round will be against the drinker....
From The Spine
**Update: Christopher Booker :
In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".
In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).
In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".
In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).
"In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
The they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller
Tags:Smoking Ban
New Labour
Oppression
Martin Niemoeller
.
6 people have spoken:
On no account should a total smoking ban be allowed ! That is pure fascism, those who are trying to enforce it are pure fascists, and as such are dangerous and should be fought tooth and nail as any dangerous fascist should.
The solution to the smoking/non-smoking problem is to have separate areas. That works perfectly well and there is no valid reason to change it. There is a lot of medical propaganda about smoking that is unproven or false, notably on the subject of passive smoking.
It is pure humbug. The rights of smokers are just as important as those of non-smokers and let no-one say otherwise. Hitler singled out the Jews in the 1930’s just like people are singling out smokers now. It is very very dangerous and these people must not be allowed to get away with this, if only because it is an open door to other things ………alcohol, fatty foods, car exhaust fumes etc etc. Rail Travel is dangerous, air travel, cars on the road.
You could argue that anything is dangerous and that it should be banned. The argument just doesn’t make sense. I have not one iota of doubt in my mind that these would-be banners are wrong and they must be stopped.
The other thing, the most hypocritical thing of all, is that if cigarettes were really as dangerous as they would have us believe, then their sale would be banned, wouldn’t it ? Ah yes, but there is too much money involved. Cannabis, which is not dangerous at all, is banned ? Why? No-one knows, but it does containes less dangerous products than tobacco.
All this goes to prove that the government are a load of hyprocrites and should in no case be listened to. It’s time the public stood up to these people who really take them for a bunch of idiots.
This non-smoker has your full support
Shame about the racist shit earlier
Cheers anon and Mike, as an ex smoker I really hate the way this shower of a government think they can micromanage each aspect of our lives.
Sure I hate smoke, but risks from passive smoke - low - not that that has ever stopped health nazi's.
Best of wishes from America. The true Patriots of America that don't give a damn about paris hilton, but the real world are sick and tired of what the islamonazis are doing to the U.K. I heard on the news here, that some suspects were arrested in Liverpool. My Mother was born and raised there. My Grandmother lived on muirhead avenue. Some of my fondest memories as a child are from the shops across the street and the Pub that let me in (even though I was way underage). I was treated like near royalty by people I did not even know. I have and always will be proud to have the British bloodline flowing through my veins. Best of wishes.
Jeff
USA
Dont worry I am sure that the islamoloons will get a nasty wake up call on fine day.
They confuse tolerance with weakness, something a certain Austrian painter & decorator also did.
Always good to hear from people across the pond, mind with the current shower we have in power here in the UK, I do wish at times that some of my ancesters had jumped on a ship to cross over to the US.
Post a Comment