Smoking establishments - Debate, not abuse.

[Guest]

I am a smoker who had to stop, having been hit with cancer of the larynx ten years ago and some pneumonia since. I haven't smoked one for several years now, but it would only take one to send me back to them, and I can't afford to pay nearly 90 dollars for a carton. Smokers need to show respect for non smokers wishes, but where an establishment is owned by a smoker and staffed by smokers, the non smoking public has no business sticking their noses in. They are free to stay away.

 

Sorry to hear of your cancer problem and hope you are ok now.

I well understand how you must miss a smoke under the circumstances.

It would be nice if no one had to stop except if they really wanted to.

 

Every smoker knows that they are laying themselves open to this and are therefore, taking a calculated risk.

 

Fully agree about smokers respecting non smokers and this thread was in fact, a way of finding whether both factions can be happy (by being completely separate) without one group being a nuisance to the other.

 

Unfortunately, the anti-smoking lot can't see this and just want to keep whining.

[SnailyBoy]

If this is so, doesn't this prove the argument that smokers are discriminated against and the law should therefore, be changed.

 

I didn't say that addictions should be added to the list - I said that smokers were discriminated against.

 

The fact that this list shows who CANNOT be discriminated against and smokers or other addicts are NOT on it, means that smokers CAN be discriminated against - and in fact ARE.

So my statement was quite correct

 

You said the law should be changed

[foxy lady]

If this is so, doesn't this prove the argument that smokers are discriminated against and the law should therefore, be changed.

 

No. The anti discrimination laws were drawn up by qualified lawyers, and are quite sensible to anyone who thinks about them.

[foxy lady]

You said the law should be changed

 

The rules are perfectly logical. You can advertise a job for non drinkers, but you can't advertise a job with the requirement that applicants must drink a bottle of Scotch each day.

[SnailyBoy]

The rules are perfectly logical. You can advertise a job for non drinkers, but you can't advertise a job with the requirement that applicants must drink a bottle of Scotch each day.

 

Huh?.....I know that. I was questioning the OP.

[wellyman]

The fact remains that most people are perfectly happy with the current situation. Most smokers I know are content to go outside if they want to smoke. Its called consideration for others. There is little call for any change in the law.

 

A couple of years ago someone started a thread on Facebook calling for 1000,000 to sign.

"Can we find 1 MILLION people that DO want smoking back in pubs?"

 

So far they have 2,179 people who have signed up.

[foxy lady]

Huh?.....I know that. I was questioning the OP.

 

I know that. I was agreeing with you.

[Guest]

You said the law should be changed

 

So I did - I apologise for my mistake.

 

My view is that, if there are to be laws regarding discrimination, they should cover EVERYBODY.

How can it be right to discriminate against one group but not another?

[andygardener]

The rules are perfectly logical. You can advertise a job for non drinkers, but you can't advertise a job with the requirement that applicants must drink a bottle of Scotch each day.

 

I think you'd be on very dodgy legal ground advertising a job for non-drinkers only.

 

You can certainly restrict drinking/smoking/lots of legal stuff in the workplace, but to only offer to employ people who agree not to participate in legal activities outside the workplace would almost certainly put you on a losing case in an employment tribunal.

[Guest]

The fact remains that most people are perfectly happy with the current situation. Most smokers I know are content to go outside if they want to smoke. Its called consideration for others. There is little call for any change in the law.

 

A couple of years ago someone started a thread on Facebook calling for 1000,000 to sign.

"Can we find 1 MILLION people that DO want smoking back in pubs?"

 

So far they have 2,179 people who have signed up.

 

When did we have a referendum to find out what MOST people think?

You mean that you assume or believe what MOST people think - not quite the same thing.

 

Most smokers, like the ones you know AND INCLUDING ME, ARE content to go outside when we want to smoke.

If you have been reading the thread properly, you will see that the thread was started because of the anti-smokers complaining about the smokers being outside - you can't have it both ways.

 

I don't go on facebook so I wouldn't know about any petition on there.

I don't recall a million people signing any petition to the contrary either.