Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioMaster
But the result (in both cases) stays the same: youre dead
|
Smoking is something I (not completly) jokingly refare to as suicide on the instalment plan.
However, that is pretty much what it is.
SELF harm.
When is the last time a kid doped out on tobacco held up an off licence to feed his habit
The last drive by shooting over the tobacco dealing business?
When was the last time somebody was overcome with the affects of tobacco and ran down a child?
When's the last time a bloke went home and beat his wife because he'd had a couple of cigarettes too many?
When's the last time there was a fist fight fueled by tobacco?
Unlike other drugs, both legal and illegal, smokers are far more apt to do harm to themselves and themselves alone.
YES Passive smoking (a Self-contradictory term if ever there was one) IS an unacceptable by product of smoking.
That is the exact reason that non smoking bars should exist.So that people who do not want to smoke or sit in a smoky atmosphere risking damage to their health can eat drink and be merry far from the smoky cloud created by the puffers of the world.
But I fear that I still cannot see a single compelling argument to say why it is illegal for Landlords to have the right to decide if they want to run a smoking or a none smoking pub.
Non smokers would still have places to drink in smoke free bliss, and would never have to cross the door of a smokers pub.
One thing that DOES gall me BTW, is that smoking is still permitted in the bars at the houses of parliament.
One rule for one eh?
