Smoking Ban Comes Into Force In Scotland

I never go to pubs in Scotland.

Well I do, strictly speaking. However that's just Mrs JP and I going for a bite to eat and they're only really pubs in name. More licenced restaurants made to look like pubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

So a person can't have a bar smoking bar in Scotland...as in THE FOLKS HERE COME IN HERE TO SMOKE AND DRINK?

I'd think an owner would have the right to that say if a person doesn't like smoke, GTFO.:dry:

The owner would pay the price in the market. He/she wouldn't get non-smoker business.

A place specifically for the purpose and a sign on the door sounds good enough. A non-smoker comes in, he can't complain. Otherwise, he's just being a bitch. He'd be like a guy going into a nudey bar complaining about the nekkid ladies. GTFO then.:unsure:

---

The law is also in place to protect the people who work in clubs and bars. People have a right not to be forced to endure passive smoking in the workplace.

It's nothing like your analogy about a bloke complaining about seeing naked women. You can't die from looking at naked women. You can die from passive smoking. :blink:

---

To your first, good point. To your second, it was a perfect analogy so why the :blink: like you haven't a clue?:ermm:

You have to look at idea that's being compared and not at how they are different.

They both are instances of going into an area where you don't feel comfortable. The fact that one is unhealthy for your matters not if you went in knowing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

The law is also in place to protect the people who work in clubs and bars. People have a right not to be forced to endure passive smoking in the workplace.

It's nothing like your analogy about a bloke complaining about seeing naked women. You can't die from looking at naked women. You can die from passive smoking. :blink:

---

To your first, good point. To your second, it was a perfect analogy so why the :blink: like you haven't a clue?:ermm:

You have to look at idea that's being compared and not at how they are different.

They both are instances of going into an area where you don't feel comfortable. The fact that one is unhealthy for your matters not if you went in knowing it.

---

:lol:

Sadly he doesn't actually see the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

My right to go wherever I want

---

This right is written down where, exactly?

In Engalnd you certainly don't have an automatic right of entry into a public bar, the person in charge can refuse you admission without giving any reason. I imagine the same is true in Scotland.

Talking to my local pub landlord the other day, he reckons over half his customers are smokers and a significant number are old blokes who like a pint and a fag whilst playing dominoes (type thing) and who will not adapt well to going outside in the wind and the rain.

Whilst I agree with many of the non-smoking arguments I still find myself pissed off that there was no scope for licencing premises for smoking or something similar. Surely if only a few premises in an area were licenced in this way, bar staff would be left with a huge choice of which type of premises to work in. Besides, many bar staff smoke and so would not mind either way anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

My right to go wherever I want

---

This right is written down where, exactly?

In Engalnd you certainly don't have an automatic right of entry into a public bar, the person in charge can refuse you admission without giving any reason. I imagine the same is true in Scotland.

---

Indeed, however I don't normally write down evey possible condition when making a statement, certainly not on an internet forum. "My right to go wherever I want, subject to the normal condition that I may be banned from a set of premises, or that the Publican or his employees may refuse me entry without having to give me a reason for taking this stance" whilst more thorough is just a bit unwieldy. I had assumed that most people would take the normal rules as being read.

Sorry if the economy of words led to a misunderstanding.

...

The law's stupid, because now people will just illegally trafick cigs just like drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

This right is written down where, exactly?

In Engalnd you certainly don't have an automatic right of entry into a public bar, the person in charge can refuse you admission without giving any reason. I imagine the same is true in Scotland.

---

Indeed, however I don't normally write down evey possible condition when making a statement, certainly not on an internet forum. "My right to go wherever I want, subject to the normal condition that I may be banned from a set of premises, or that the Publican or his employees may refuse me entry without having to give me a reason for taking this stance" whilst more thorough is just a bit unwieldy. I had assumed that most people would take the normal rules as being read.

Sorry if the economy of words led to a misunderstanding.

---

Likewise, I didn't expand the full range of possibilities of where you don't have the right to go.

Your claim:
"My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others. "

I've not seen anyone claiming a "right to poison themselves or others" either, so I assume you made that up.

So when it comes down to it, what you are really saying is that your non-existent right to go wherever you want > the non-existent right of someone to poison themselves and others.

Doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Indeed, however I don't normally write down evey possible condition when making a statement, certainly not on an internet forum. "My right to go wherever I want, subject to the normal condition that I may be banned from a set of premises, or that the Publican or his employees may refuse me entry without having to give me a reason for taking this stance" whilst more thorough is just a bit unwieldy. I had assumed that most people would take the normal rules as being read.

Sorry if the economy of words led to a misunderstanding.

---

Likewise, I didn't expand the full range of possibilities of where you don't have the right to go.

Your claim:
"My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others. "

I've not seen anyone claiming a "right to poison themselves or others" either, so I assume you made that up.

So when it comes down to it, what you are really saying is that your non-existent right to go wherever you want > the non-existent right of someone to poison themselves and others.

Doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense does it.

---

I would go further, you make absolutely no sense at all.

Smoking cigarettes is poisoning yourself and other people who inhale your smoke. To claim you have a right to smoke in public is to claim you have a right to produce poisonous substances and inhale them yourself, in addition to putting them into the air which other people breathe.

We decided that to do it in enclosed spaces is not acceptable behaviour. Like I said, I think that's a good thing. You disagree, no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Likewise, I didn't expand the full range of possibilities of where you don't have the right to go.

Your claim:
"My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others. "

I've not seen anyone claiming a "right to poison themselves or others" either, so I assume you made that up.

So when it comes down to it, what you are really saying is that your non-existent right to go wherever you want > the non-existent right of someone to poison themselves and others.

Doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense does it.

---

I would go further, you make absolutely no sense at all.

Smoking cigarettes is poisoning yourself and other people who inhale your smoke. To claim you have a right to smoke in public is to claim you have a right to produce poisonous substances and inhale them yourself, in addition to putting them into the air which other people breathe.

We decided that to do it in enclosed spaces is not acceptable behaviour. Like I said, I think that's a good thing. You disagree, no problem.

---

Let's clear one or two things up.

A smoker (not me, I don't smoke) does have a right to inhale smoke, even if you want to try to muddy the waters with your emotive "poisonous substances". The law hasn't changed that, only where they can do it.

If a smoker (not me, I don't smoke) were to claim that they should be able to force others to enter areas where their presence is otherwise purely optional, you would be correct. Obviously this precludes most of the areas on your list. However, I haven't met a single one who has claimed that. If you have, please produce some evidence.

The issue regarding other premises (largely bars and public houses) could have easily accomodated all parties. Strict enforcement of the restriction of smoking to designated areas (away from the bar) with adequate ventilation such that smoke cannot drift into non-smoking areas could have been introduced. Any premises unable to comply would simply have to become completely non-smoking. Only a few who wished to show that they can bully the minority would have objected. However, those in power have no time for minorities, and will trample roughshod over the rights of the owners of such premises.

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. As this grows, so will calls for it to be banned. Perhaps you should think of finding another tipple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. As this grows, so will calls for it to be banned. Perhaps you should think of finding another tipple.

---

What pray tell does that relate to.

Could another mod please ask lynx to stay on topic in the Drawing Room and not post thinly veiled personal abuse. I would very much appreciate it. I was placed on moderation for asking an obviously jocular question "do you have an unfeasibly small penis".

I would appreciate it if the rules also counted for mods.

Thanks in advance.

Edit - Oh wait, he's trolling. I'm supposed to react to that. :lol:

I was implying that something you like could just as easily get banned, and was therefore completely on topic.

Still, never let it be said that you resort to "smear a mod" tactics when you haven't got a valid answer.

I've already answered and don't intend getting involved in a circular non-argument. I really can't be bothered.

"Smear a mod":lol:

Hands up anyone who doesn't think

Quote:

---

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly.

---

wasn't intended as a cheap pop.

It's you who's trying to muddy the waters, because you know you are in the wrong and haven't the decency to just admit it.

As a mod you had a cheap dig at a member, in The Drawing Room. I don't suppose anything will get done about it, but don't try to kid on it didn't happen.

Here, I'll say my mantra again. The posts are all there for people to read and make up their own mind.

Quote:

---

As a mod you had a cheap dig at a member, in The Drawing Room. I don't suppose anything will get done about it, but don't try to kid on it didn't happen.

---

In your mind only.

But here's the thing. You often have a dig at other members, even in The Drawing Room. But you don't think mods can have a go too, even though they are members too.

Talk about dual standards. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

As a mod you had a cheap dig at a member, in The Drawing Room. I don't suppose anything will get done about it, but don't try to kid on it didn't happen.

---

In your mind only.

---

I refer you to my post of some moments ago. Other people read the posts, they can make up their own minds about who said what to whom.

Re the rest. Whatever. You're above the rules, so say what you want.

so.. i turn to this topic to reply in my sencerist with a great statement
clik on last reply...
only to find it is on incestious bitching about leadership
i retrieve my non post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Talk about dual standards. :dry:

---

That's a fecking laugh!

You insult JP, JP insults you back. He gets put on moderation, you don't.

You can't have it both ways.

No, sorry, you can have it both ways because you're a moderator. Just don't try to pretend it's otherwise.

Quote:

---

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. As this grows, so will calls for it to be banned. Perhaps you should think of finding another tipple.

---

This is in no way an insult and it is not trolling.:dry: