Taking Action Against Smoking Bans

As many of you would know, one of public policy issues that really, really, really annoys me is the move to ban smoking on private property (particularly in bars &c). It is a move towards nanny-state soft-totalitarianism, and is a fundamental violation of the private property rights on which liberal democracies are based upon.

Some of you may have seen the case of Nick Hogan the other day. Nick Hogan, a publican in the UK, was sentence to 6 months in prison for refusing to pay a 10,000 pound fine for breaching regulations prohibiting smoking bans. My initial reaction was “I would pay money to support this martyr to the cause”. And, the more I read online, the more I realised a lot of other people would also.

Unfortunately, there exists no structure at the moment for opponents of smoking bans to assist patriots like Nick Hogan. There is no centralised legal defense fund that seeks out cases of people either challenging smoking bans, or being unfairly prosecuted (persecuted?) under them.

So I want to set one up.

I’m currently working with a few people with the idea of setting up a 501(c)(3) charitable organisation dedicated to providing legal assistance to persons engaged in litigation on this rather significant issue. Personally, I think that this is something quite necessary (whilst numerous legal funds have been set to fund individual cases, there is no centralized organization to dispense funds to the most pressing cases), and something that will raise a significant amount of funds, as well as generate a good amount of earned media.

So, that’s my idea. From you, my good readers, I ask two things: 1)What are your thoughts, do you think it will work &c., and 2)Are you willing to help out the cause of freedom.


33 Responses to “Taking Action Against Smoking Bans”

  1. JaketheMuss Says:

    1, I do not know but I think that should not matter. Let us make our stand and defend it to the end.
    2, Willing to help the cause of freedom? Baby that’s WHAT I DO!

  2. Kevin Waterman Says:

    1) I think it can work, but it probably needs some careful treading, at least to begin with. It’s still kosher to hate smokers, but with the right cases as poster examples (like Nick Hogan) I think that can be overcome.

    2) Most definitely.

  3. Andrew Twiss Says:

    1) Well what about passive smoking and the dangers that that entails? It is one thing to ban smoking in private property such as the home, but quite another to ban it in a private area that is frequented by other people, such as a resteurant or aircraft or bar. Then it comes down to the right of the individual (smoker) to do as she or he pleases vs the right of others to exist in a healthy environment. And sure, you can argue that those people could simply go somewhere else but that is most often inconvenient at best or impossible at worst. And what of the employees at these establishments, what choice do they have? No doubt the recent laws banning smoking in cars with children are brought about (at least partly) by the recognition that most often a child’s freedom of choice in these circumstances is very limited. To my mind passive smoking is a form of assault! Would you condone acceptance of other forms of violence against patrons on private property?

  4. Tim Andrews Says:

    Mr. Twiss, with all due respect, you are missing the fundamental point. No-one forces you to go into a bar! Rather, you _choose_ to!
    A bar is _not_ public property, rather it is private property.
    And the owner of private property ought have the right to determine what legal activities go in there.

  5. Andrew Twiss Says:

    And there we have the rub. Sort of a chicken and egg argument. What is legal or not is a social contract hammered out by the citizens of a community. So if the citizens (through their elected representitives) choose to make smoking itself legal BUT smoking around others in certain areas frequented by the public illegal then private propery or not it is still illegal. To my way of thinking society requires of myself certain obligations directed towards my fellow citizens regardless of the enshrining of rights for myself. That is the way civilised society is constructed! In your original post you rail against “nanny state soft totalitarianism” but surely any attempted unilateral action against said laws (such as not paying a fine) is in and of itself a form of anarchism?

    Now your mileage may vary and you may choose to rail against such laws and seek to have them overturned. That is your right. But please do not confuse the enactment of a law in which the majority of the population in a multi-party democratic state support and which has clear health benefits for all of the citizens with a totalitarian form of government.

  6. adam Says:

    While a bar is private property, it is usually a business opened to the public. Such businesses are usually subject to laws governing what they can and cannot disciminate against.

    At least where I live (Australia) no bar can stop a person belonging to a minority race onto their property on that grounds alone. Similarly they cannot discriminate against people with disabilities. This is for the good of society as a whole. Very few would argure such rules are unfair.

    I see such smoking laws as no different. I do not believe public bars should have free reign to discriminate against those who seek a slightly healthier life.

    While a bar or restruant might be privately held, i think it is a stretch to expect the same rights of freedom in such locations as one would expect in their home.

  7. adam Says:

    Hey cool it turns out I cannot spell *discriminate* at midnight. Other things aswell, im sure.

    Anyways while I do not see eye to eye with you on the smoking front and think standing up against such laws is a tad futile.

    I would whole heartedly support the idea of someone setting up a charity to help fight legal battles which they see as unjust. So more power to you I guess. Have fun.

  8. Wormsnapper Says:

    Passive smoking, yeah, another example of politicized science, just like the global warming farrago. They moved the goalposts on passive smoking when they couldn’t get any results to support their case. Prior to that the only study that rendered results was the one showing that children subjected to passive smoking were less likely to get lung cancer later in life.

    To Adam I would say, why no smoking rooms, why no chance of pubs declaring themselves smoking pubs and putting up signs to warn of that? Because the laws are the product of righteous, nannying, authoritarian pricks, that’s why.

  9. Thomas Laprade Says:

    Government gone wild

    The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea
    has nothing to do with protecting people from the “threat of second-hand
    smoke” but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a
    cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic,
    reaching even the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the
    only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.

    The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
    menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
    Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people
    about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions,
    or should they seize the power of government and force people to make
    the “right” decision?

    It seems they’ve made their choice. Loudly billed as measures that only
    affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants,
    bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices – places whose owners are free to set
    anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t
    like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers outdoors.

    The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by
    each individual according to his own values and assessment of the risks.
    This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of
    their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or love, whether
    to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

    All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or
    invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these
    decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own
    judgment can guide him through it.

    Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are
    a minority, practicing a habit often considered annoying and unpleasant to
    the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of
    government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

    That is why these bans are far more threatening than few stray whiffs of
    tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The
    anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while
    they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.

  10. Ben Says:

    Most anti-smoking hysterics have been getting away with this shit for too long. Good luck. Hitler was an extreme example – but they’re all pretty controlling people.

  11. josh Says:

    The ban on smoking has nothing to do with the customers and everything to do with the workers. It’s essentially an OH&S issue – we don’t permit people to work in asbestos filled environments either.

    Unlike the customers, the staff don’t have the choice to leave. Sure the owners should have the right to do as they like on their own property, but they do not have the right to force their employees to work under unsafe conditions, and to have to choose between their health and their employment.

  12. m Says:

    A 501 (c) (3) is established for educational, informational purposes.
    Any fundraising would need to be applied to those goals.
    I am not sure how one could use it as a tool for legal funding-
    but – I say- if it can be done-go for it- and yes I would donate.
    Hogan does not belong in a jail cell for goodness sake.
    Paying his legal fines is also not a way to go- that would be
    giving in to the ridiculous stucture. Paying for legal Defense
    would be the goal-a global assault on bans on privately owned
    businesses would be great! m/ USA

  13. Kevin Says:

    Is it reasonable to evaluate second hand smoke as a class one carcinogen or a health hazard at all? Or would it be more reasonable to see such an assessment as phobic irrational fear, inspired by a damaged or deranged mind. The later is more logical in spite of the propaganda being spread deliberately, to focus a political bent, beyond even what the lobbies could ever have envisioned in their wildest dreams.

    Ten years ago the prospect of banning smoking in a bar of all places was unimaginable. By the formed common sense of thousands of years of experience, creating inclusive and ethical communities. We have not gained any revolutionary new perspectives or superhuman abilities in the past decade, to unveil science that was not always there to see. So either the experts have been grossely incompetent, to not see these tremendous risks before now, or someone is pulling the wool over the eyes of the mainstream media by contrived and deceptive ad agency promotions.

    There is nothing inclusive or ethical about a smoking ban, it is an ungracious assault against a selected portion of the community, created as a wedge issue to drive communities apart. While the political authors and creators of this plan are left to oversee a problem they invented and act to cure a problem, that was never real or more than an inconvenience, easily solved with a sign. The same kind of sign we use to warn people nuts are being used, or not to enter an expressway in the wrong direction. There is only one logical reason to ignore the sign as an option, and that would be; that it is too simple and does not accomplish the goal which was always to distinguish someone who smokes as less than everyone else.

    The disingenuous cries of protections required for the patrons do not have a basis of science to sustain them, because if the smoke were so deadly and permanent, their claims that smokers risks diminish after they quit, would be extinguished. So the protection of workers was invented to move forward and promote their little piece of anal retentive sanctimony. If the human body were ever so weak and defenseless that a little smoke in a bar could extinguish life at the scale the sleaze merchants sell, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the outdoor air would have extinguished all human life thousands of years ago.

    Protecting the employees and comparing it to asbestos exposures is rich. Asbestos creates cancers for almost everyone exposed in unsafe dosages and those permissible levels are quite low compared to the smoke, almost all of us have already inhaled. The smoke even in worst case lifetime exposure [24/7 for over 40 years] numbers creates a risk so small that in any other identical evaluation it would be ignored.

    The risk of worst case is a .19 increase risk above no risk represented as 1. Which is portrayed in the funny papers as a 19% increased risk that you might get cancer or heart disease? The drinking water in those little bottles the health nuts can’t be seen without, caries a tremendous quantative level of carcinogens and cancer risk by comparison. The leeched carcinogens from the plastic demonstrate levels of increase risk beyond 2 and the water in the bottle beyond 1.4. Milk represents a 2.65 increase above no risk. Have you ever heard then say that milk carries a 265% increased risk that you will get cancer? No, and for a good reason because the reality is that epidemiology can never produce a scientific fact. It is a rough guess while real research finds direction from the highest numbers, to look for the facts. In most cases they seek at minimum numbers beyond 3 before anyone in their right mind would ever consider funding research to look closer. When you hear these lunatics blathering on that they have “a right to be protected” you can take what they demand with a measure of reality, pat them on the back and suggest a good therapist. Because that is the only form of treatment or protection they ever required, in spite of the ad agency promotions being purchased with your taxes.

    Want proof? Stand in a smoky bar all day long and you will walk away unscathed try it in a garage with the car running and you won’t walk away at all.

    Now consider how much of what is in the garage is produced every day compared to cigarette smoke and adjust your mindset to focus on what is important.

  14. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Theres plenty of us everywhere who want the bans gone and freedom reestablished.I fight everyday.

  15. Kevin Says:

    People need to see the real evidence before allowing the ad agencies to convince them that the sky is not blue. Different opinions form, when all the facts are laid out without the all too familiar and repetitive political sleaze and double talk. Do people really dance when they smell air fresheners? Or do they gain superhuman strength after consuming a soft drink?

    Second hand smoke is of the same overly creative mindset and perception.

    McTear vs Imperial Tobacco Limited 31st May 2005

    Here’s my brief summary of the case made by the expert witness for ITL: (see paras [5.397] through [5.401 for the actual text.)
    US Surgeon General (SG) and UK Royal College of Physicians (RCP) reports stress that nicotine is both instantly and strongly addictive. The reports always cite a research paper – ‘Henningfield 1984’ as their source for this. Jack Henningfield was the author of the paper. He also sat on the US SG advisory committee, was an advisor to the RCP and is a consultant to Glaxo Smithkline.
    ‘Henningfield 1984’ does indeed conclude that Nicotine is strongly addictive. However it seems the actual data in the paper completely contradicts his conclusion. Addictiveness is illustrated in the paper by similar looking bar charts, except that the scales are completely different. It appears nicotine is nearer chocolate in addictiveness.

    And this is the judge’s view on the addiction evidence (exact text):

    “[6.204] Professor Gray’s criticisms of the “addiction” model appeared to me to have force. I was particularly impressed by the criticism of Henningfield 1984. As had been brought out in Warburton 1988a, Henningfield’s histograms when re-plotted on the same scale did not provide strong support for Henningfield’s conclusion. Nicotine could then be seen to be, at best, a weak euphoriant and did not act like other compounds in the maintenance of other kinds of substance self-administration. Professor Gray also considered the question of tolerance and contrasted withdrawal symptoms from quitting smoking and from quitting heroin. His discussion of these supported the view that the behavioural and psychological changes observed in quitting smokers were more reasonably interpreted as reflecting non-specific dysphoria consequent upon disruption of a habit and loss of the pleasure or other benefits the habit provided.

    [6.205] I was impressed above all by Professor Gray’s critique of the mechanistic view embodied in the proposition that smokers did not smoke out of choice but because they became addicted to nicotine. As he pointed out, under the normal humanist view of life people chose to do things. The mechanistic view was not supported by the data about the number of people who had given up smoking. Support for the functional view was found in Warburton 1988b. Among the functional effects of smoking, of particular relevance in Mr McTear’s case were those concerned with mood control. If smoking tobacco alleviated depression, not because it had a direct antidepressant effect, but rather because, for a habitual smoker, deprivation of smoking had a depressant effect, this could explain Mr McTear’s behaviour on the occasions when he temporarily gave up smoking. There was little by the way of direct challenge to this evidence in cross-examination. He said that it was not possible to say why one smoker succeeded in quitting while another did not, though the answer might lie in the smoker’s individual circumstances. He agreed that it could be taken from MacAskill et al. 2002 that people in lower socio-economic groups in Scotland were more likely to smoke and less likely to give up. But, as he pointed out, this observation was consistent with the functional model.

    [6.206] Professor Gray’s evidence accordingly is consistent with the averment for the pursuer that once individuals such as Mr McTear have started smoking it is difficult for them to wean themselves off the habit. It provides no support for the proposition that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine, or more addictive than heroin for that matter. There is no evidence before me which provides support for the conclusion in USSG 1988 that the pharmacological and behavioural processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Indeed, insofar as this relied on Henningfield 1984, it lacked a sound scientific basis. ”

    Think for yourself and never tolerate the con men and whores, who are more concerned with the contents of your pockets, than what is in your mind.

  16. Kevin Says:

    People here should join the discussion if you feel slighted by the anti-smoker movement, you certainly are not alone. Internationally there is tremendous opposition. The mainstream media and the ad agencies have done a splendid job of hiding the largest half of the truth.

    The McTier legal brief above, was borrowed from another quite intelligent participant. Funny when you hear from the anti-smoker cabal how they repeat the same promo. When you hear from the proponents of choice and freedom, there are no end to the number of perspectives brought forward.

    Kind of brings forward the bigoted lemmings marching over a cliff following the leader, versus normal people interacting independently, in busy communities, while all are living their own lives, as what we are really discussing here.


  17. Winnie Says:

    The ASHists have a new claim to fame; another among many lies…


    “Contact Information:
    Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

    “America’s First Antismoking Organization”



    “Modern prohibition still destroys individual freedom in the U.S.A. via the “War on Drugs” (more correctly known as the war on you and your rights) and via the Prohibition Party that still exists as a political party in the United States. As its name implies, the Prohibition Party advocates the prohibition of the use of beverages containing alcohol, as did the party during the old temperance movement. Prohibition (old and new) is the tragedy of civilization.

    The Prohibition Party was founded in 1867. The Prohibition Party’s infamous deed was the passage of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1919, which outlawed the production, sale, transportation, import, and export of alcohol.

    Francis Bellamy was a Prohibition Party speaker before he authored the “Pledge of Allegiance” to the United States flag. According to the writer Bill Kaufmann “Bellamy called it a ‘Pledge of Allegiance,’ probably choosing the word ‘pledge’ because it was redolent of the temperance movement.” The early Pledge originated the stiff-arm salute that was adopted later by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

    Francis (1855 – 1931) and his also-famous cousin, Edward Bellamy (1850 – 1898), were self-proclaimed socialists in the Nationalism movement in the U.S.A. Prohibition was supported in Edward Bellamy’s magazine “The Nationalist.” Francis was a charter member of the first Nationalist Club of Boston, and promoted Edward Bellamy’s Nationalist creed in written articles. Francis Bellamy defended his cousin’s form of socialism in the article “The Tyranny of All the People” in the Arena Magazine July, 1891 (p.180-191). ”

    “Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy inspired socialism in Germany under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the infamous stiff-arm salute, and prohibition under German National Socialism.
    In 1941, the magazine Auf der Wacht (On Guard) under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party published an illustration reminding Germans of a new public-health ordinance. The poster showed a cigarette, a cigar, and a pipe, all smoldering beneath a menacing black boot and an eagle-and-swastika insignia.
    The illustration, and dozens others like it, is reproduced in a new book by the Penn State science historian Robert N. Proctor. The book is “The Nazi War on Cancer” under German National Socialism. What’s more, the National Socialist German Workers Party imposed a series of public-health measures that are still promoted by socialists in the United States and elsewhere today: banning smoking in various places, running aggressive anti smoking propaganda campaigns, and placing restrictions on how tobacco could be advertised. “

  18. Ken Hill (non-smoker) Says:

    Hooray for Fascism (non-smoker)

    Hooray for Fascism. Let us all jump up and down and sing in joy, like little children, but we are adults that know Fascism is evil and to make emotional decisions about our children’s future based on our government’s irrational anti-smoking agenda, is in not in their best interest.

    Capitalism can thrive without war. It is a producer of goods and services. Capitalism trades with other countries. Fascism depends on the demise of Capitalism. Fascism destroys the means of producing goods and services necessitating invasion against other countries.

    Big Government assists Fascism to exist by forcing their will upon the population with more and more sweeping legislations. Small Government relies upon the strength of the people, not their weaknesses’, to project hope into the future.

    Capitalism requires courage to move forward, Fascism cowardice. Fascism always hides, represses their rotting, self-betrayed inner state while spewing “there is no hope, the earth is dying” mentality upon the world. Anti-smoking bans are part of this process.

    The earth is not dying, but the strident forcefulness of ‘chicken littleism, politicized environmentalism, Fascism’ must be identified and eradicated.

  19. Ken Hill (non-smoker) Says:

    From a non-smoker, these are the profound words of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand, “I like to think of fire held in a man’s hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind–and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”

    Words of this nature come from the courage of Capitalistic thinking, not the cowardice of Fascist thinking, that is enviously spreading like wildfire.

    Quote from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged

  20. Josh Says:

    Hi Kevin. Funnily enough I actually work in public health and we are often concerned with risk factors below a 300% increase – i’m not quite sure where you are pulling this number from.

    Citing examples of worse dangers does not justify an existing problem. It’s a little like saying that there’s war in africa, so we shouldn’t get upset over a shooting down the street.

    How many lives, exactly, do you think should be exchanged for our own convenience? Is mild annoyance to 1 person worth 1 life? No? How about killing 1 person to save annoyance for 10,000 people? There is no acceptable metric to use here.

    No one is debating the link between second hand smoke and cancer / heart disease, and generally speaking as a society we are not in favour of letting our members kill each other for their own convenience, no matter how much they might want to.

  21. Doug Foncree Says:

    The only credible reports concerning the dangers of “second hand smoke” come from OSHA. This agency has done many studies using the most sophisticated equipment available and has determined in every instance that the danger of “second hand smoke” is non-existant. When the federal government and the large pharmaceutical companies determined to prove something about which that had previously announced their conclusion, they did just that. But OSHA, who is the primary agency responsible for detecting and eleminating dangers in the workplace, had no preset conclusion which they had to set about verifying. As a result the OSHA studies constitute the closest approach to truly scientific studies that are available. The gullible, mindless sheep who make up the mass known as the “public” have become so acclimated to accepting as truth whatever the media presents to them as truth that they never bother to question whatever propaganda is spoon-fed to them by this same media. I have yet to figure out any way of enticing people to think things through. It is much easier to blindly accept whatever lies are brought forward and presented than to go to all the work of independent thinking.
    While I am not a gambler, I would be willing to place a large wager that despite all his apparent concern about human life, if the truth were told, Josh supports abortion.

    Doug Foncree

  22. Andrew Twiss Says:

    Alas Josh, I think we have stumbled into a nest of denialism, whether smoking, global warming or otherwise. Some may see the motive as selfishness but I prefer (read hope) to think that it is just ignorance. Dangerous ignorance to be sure but ignorance all the same.

  23. Tim Andrews Says:

    I do not dispute that ‘passive smoking’ has negative health effects.
    The issue, however (as I stated previously) is not one of health, but private property.
    You are correct however in the difference between us: I do not believe the state has the power to use coercive force to make me fulfil ‘responsibilities’ (as they deem them) to others. You do. That is indeed the rub.

  24. Jake the Muss Says:

    A miner accepts the risks of the job. A man on an oil rig accepts the risks of the job. A bartender accepts the risks of the job.

    As someone who is presently unemployed I tell those bartenders to ‘GET ANOTHER JOB’ if they don’t like it.

  25. Doug Foncree Says:

    The prime point here is being completely missed. There is not one shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence that “second hand smoke” is a danger to anyone or anything. However, there is more than ample evidence that it constitutes absolutely no danger of any kind. In fact, the POSSIBILITY of developing cancer from drinking tap water or flying commercially (above 20,000 feet) once a year is greater than living for 40 years with a smoking spouse.
    Doug Foncree

  26. Tallu Says:

    I agree with Jake the Muss: “A miner accepts the risks of the job. A man on an oil rig accepts the risks of the job. A bartender accepts the risks of the job.”

    Many jobs entail hazards. If a private business such as a bar or restaurant wants to cater to smokers, that is the chosen nature of the business. The responsibility to the public and to prospective employees is simply to make it clear before customers enter the premises or prospective employees spend time at an interview that “This business allows smoking on the premises.”

    There is no such thing as a RIGHT to a specific job at a specific place. You have the right to seek a job that suits your requirements, and an employer has the right to hire you only if you suit his requirements and want to be hired.

    And by the way, if there aren’t enough people who are willing to work where people smoke, some pro-smoking employers will have to change their smoking policies.

    I’m allergic to cigarette smoke. I personally enjoy being able to go into every bar and restaurant in Melbourne. But I think it is a travesy that cigar bars that were opened *specifically* for smokers before the bans came along now have to make their cigar patrons go outside.

    I can make my own decisions and so can everyone else. I carry out my business where there is no smoke and avoid places where there is. I don’t want to enforce my preferences and health priorities on others and I want the right to enforce my own priorities on my own property, whether at home or in my business (if I had one).

  27. Thomas Laprade Says:

    ” No one has the right to make health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the “toxic effect of second hand smoke”.

  28. Andrew Twiss Says:

    I take it you were strongly against the war on Iraq then Thomas, eh?

  29. Thomas Laprade Says:

    My political views are personal and besides what has Iraq has to do with the subject at hand??

  30. Andrew Twiss Says:

    You stated “no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie”

    Sounds like the decision to invade Iraq to me!

  31. Michelle Says:

    The way I see it is Smoking is quite a selfish habit. For nearly 40 years non-smokers have had to put up and shut up while their health is affected with your smoke. Funny how the table has turned. Now we see smokers kicking up a hissy fit because they don’t like the fact their selfish habit has become more restricted. If you want to smoke then fine but the health of non smokers should be priority over your indulgence. If a company started polluting the local environment and putting local residents at risk there would be an outcry. If the oceans were polluted by some self centered company there would be outcry so why is that non-smokers health is expected to come second to smokers craving for a cigarrette. To all those who snigger at the thought that cigarettes harm non-smokers well in 2008 I was admitted to A&E because of someone around me smoking sefishly with little thought to my allergy to cigarrettes. Smokers … you’ve had it your way for 40 years now it’s time that the health of others is put before your habits. I support the ban of smoking in public places, in cars where children are present and any place where a non smoker has breathing problems. If you want to challenge this then why don’t you open a chain of restaurants or bars for smokers only and we will happily walk on by and go nowhere near your bar 🙂

  32. Tim Andrews Says:

    Because it’s illegal to do so. Which is kinda my point.

  33. google search engine Says:

    This gym is for those who want to assist you trade penny stock options.
    That’s precisely I like has to be the much better within order to find the ideally penny stock choices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: