[Archived] Smoking Ban At Ewood

[1864roverite]

Your missing the point Jamie, what I want is the opportunity to go and have a fag somewhere, where it wont affect the non-smokers.

I am hoping to have given up smoking by then anyway, but people who do smoke should have a right to do it, even if it means setting up an area outside the ground.

395136[/snapback]

I have heard the flying parrot or the fruit machine are the places to go for a fag

[American]

You're right, seat belts are a menace

395168[/snapback]

Nice to know my point was wasted on someone....

[blue phil]

I don't understand the logic here. Ban smoking in the stands but not on the concourses? One area is well ventilated, the other is like an opium den at half time.

394978[/snapback]

There is no logic when Political Correctness is allied to short term expediency . A bit like banning smoking in a pub full of consenting adults ....and allowing it in homes where kids haven't the choice to walk out .

[Ianrally]

i'm not a smoker but these smoking bans at football,the pub,the town centre is total rollocks,pc madness,i bet half of you groaning and moaning are ex smokers.once this has full effect it will be us poor drinkers next  

395126[/snapback]

Quite right, ban alcohol at Ewood. The number of alcoholics that sit in the same row as me, who come in after kick off, leave 15 mins before half time and then come back in 10 mins after the start of the second half, rally annoy me. Do they want to watch live football or is it the plastic glasses that they have a fettish for?

Once the smoking ban comes in I will just invest in Sky TV and watch my football from home and leave all you sanctimonius folk on here to your clean air. I certainly hope that you will all be walking or cycling to the game in future so as not to polute my air space with carbon monoxide fumes that I haven't chosen to breathe either.

[colin]

That's Rovers well and truely screwed because at least 50% of the goals we have ever scored have been while I have been rolling one. It's mine & Rovers' lucky action.

Amber Leaf and Rizla up in the air. All over the place. Whooo-hoo. It happened right on cue when Bellamy scored the winner against Boro.

You regret this Mr Williams. When we are propping up division 1 you'll be begging me to spliff up in the boardroom.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

[jim mk2]

There is no logic when Political Correctness is allied to short term expediency . A bit like banning smoking in a pub full of consenting adults ....and allowing it in homes where kids haven't the choice to walk out .

395227[/snapback]

Illogical.

Pubs and football grounds ..... public places.

Private homes ..... not public places.

Not difficult is it ?

[ABBEY]

Nice to know my point was wasted on someone....

395194[/snapback]

my aunty would have die 25 years ago if she had her seatbelt on when a bus hit the drivers door...she dived out of the way...the police and docs reckon with a belt on she would of been crushed.

[tcj_jones]

As a non-smoker myself this is a practice I really abhor.  I usually need to use the toilets at half-time and have great difficulty dealing with the smoke/smell of smoking in the concourse, and when people do it in the toilets it's worse.

395017[/snapback]

I just don't understand the need.

Forcing us to wear seat belts, taking away the ability to smoke.

The sad part is as they slowly take away our liberties you sheep just sit back and let them without a complaint. By the time they take away our right to free speech (among others), you won't care.

395166[/snapback]

Oh come on, get over yourself. If we're talking about liberty, I value my own right to watch a football match without the disgusting woft of smoke being blown in my face, or being able to get a drink at half time without getting a head ache and feeling faint from all the smoke.

It's not as if you can't smoke, just not in public places. When our own personal liberties are actually taken from us, then I won't be one to stand by and watch.

[Drummer Boy]

I don't mind whether people smoke or not - it's a free country (well, it used to be).

What I do mind is being told I can't do something - the current trend to ban activities and regulate how we live our lives is becoming extremely tiresome and I, for one, am fed up of it.

When will this nannying government learn that it is better to educate people than to appear to be constantly telling them what liberties and choices they are eroding next?

At work, at home and at play - where will it end?

[vindaloobob]

What I do mind is being told I can't do something - the current trend to ban activities and regulate how we live our lives is becoming extremely tiresome and I, for one, am fed up of it.

oh absolutely. because there was once a golden age where we were all free to do whatever we wanted without being hassled by the man.

as an occasional smoker, i am all for the pub ban. i like to be able to chose whether i smoke or not, and right now i don't have that choice - if i go for to a pub i am breathing in other people's smoke. when i've been to ireland i can chose to not smoke, or i can chose to go outside and smoke. it's great!

the only downside i can see is that you start to notice the smells that cigarettes hide so well - toilets, b.o., farts....

[American]

Illogical.

Pubs and football grounds ..... public places.

Private homes ..... not public places.

Not difficult is it ?

395261[/snapback]

Mr. Genius: How is a pub a public place? It is a private establishment and it's owners should be able to run it as they please.

[asianRover]

i agree. there is always this little thing called choice. if you dont want second hand, you do have the choice not to enter. by all means, banning it in pubic places is fine, however to ban it at pubs is a tad too extreme.

[blue phil]

Illogical.

Pubs and football grounds ..... public places.

Private homes ..... not public places.

Not difficult is it ?

395261[/snapback]

So maybe you can explain why private clubs where the members have to apply to join are not exempt from smoking bans .

Also , as American has pointed out higher up the thread , pubs are in effect the private property of the landlord to whom he allows members of the public to enter . If the place is too smoky they can leave and go elsewhere . Freedom of choice .

As I implied before if the issue was purely about health the Government would take the logical step and ban smoking altogether and thus ensure that vulnerable kids at home were not effected .

Digressing slightly , I noticed that the Scottish parliament are bringing in measures to ban all smoking on the stage or on TV programmes . No characters must be seen smoking . The Westminster parliament are due to vote on similar measures in a year or so .

I used to joke to my mates that fairly soon all depictions of Churchill would be airbrushed of cigars . Now it is becoming reality . Welcome to the Owellian state .

[den]

1] So maybe you can explain why private clubs where the members have to apply to join are not exempt from smoking bans .

2] Also , as American has pointed out higher up the thread , pubs are in effect the private property of the landlord to whom he allows members of the public to enter . If the place is too smoky they can leave and go elsewhere . Freedom of choice .

3] As I implied before  if the issue was purely about health the Government would take the logical step and ban smoking altogether and thus ensure that vulnerable kids at home were not effected .

 

395390[/snapback]

1] Because people have to work there and should be protected from Cancer.

2] Freedom of choice to be able to drink without being forced to smoke.

3] That wouldn't bother you, would it Phil?

[bellamy11]

If non-smokers have the free choice of not going to the pub where the fumes are, then smokers have the free choice of not going to the pub where they aren't allowed to smoke. I really don't see the problem.

God forbit the government try and pass something which improves the health of the residents of the country. Or should we be trying to kill afew more people to keep the population down before it gets out of control?

[American]

1] Because people have to work there and should be protected from Cancer.

2] Freedom of choice to be able to drink without being forced to smoke.

395462[/snapback]

What stupid responses!!

1) People do not HAVE to work there, they choose to.

2) What choice? You only have the choice to go where people don't smoke, not choice to go to pubs that are smoking or pubs that are non-smoking. No one says you have to go out to drink. Under the old system, no one said to the owner, you MUST allow smoking. They had the choice then, now they don't. You were still able to drink without being forced to smoke. No one allowed you to drink at home? Or at friends' houses?

[den]

What stupid responses!!

People do not HAVE to work there, they choose to.

Where do you suggest that people who don't want to inhale someone elses smoke, work?

[asianRover]

the same thing is startin to happen here in singapore. slowly bit by bit ciggs prices has risen. sure its only 50cents here or a dollar more there but if you were to reverse the clock, ciggs prices have gone by more than 50% in the past few years. now no smoking at bus stops and some public areas, and just recently the govt was comtemplating banning smoking in clubs and pubs. thus im assuming it'll only be a matter of time till the same thing happens here in singapore. though its gets pretty comical once in a while when you see singaporeans getting caught smuggling in ciggs from neighbouring country malaysia due to high ciggs prices.

me, myself being a smoker, i do make an effort not to smoke in the close vicinity of others in public places. however when it comes to clubs or pubs i wouldnt really think twice bout having a fag (not the american slang mind you) cos most of the crowd do smoke. anyways i'm all for banning smoking in most public places but not a complete ban. true, it wouldnt be fair to smoke at all place but saying that you are not allowed to smoke outside but its ok, by all means go home to your wife and kids and smoke. how does that make any sense?

ok, so lets say we eliminate smoking all together, but wait.. what about drinking? isnt that another evil we should get rid off? and then lets impose curfew before 10 so that everyone is safe at night. while we're at it, let's all shake hands, give hugs and kisses and achieve world peace. ok smoking is deadly to health and im only hastening my death. oh wait, hold on a minute.. last time i checked, fatty food loaded with cholesterol aint good for health is it. and so is too much sweety substances. so im guessing we should ban food that is deemed highly dangerous to health as well?

Edited April 1, 2006 by asianRover

[roversmum]

fair enough asianrover, but unless someone drives when drunk and runs me over drinking is likely to affect them more than me. And when I'm enjoying my chocolate doughnut it's my waistline that increases, not anyone elses.

I'm still trying to understand why anyone would want to smoke. Why do people want to smell like an ashtray and possibly damage the well-being of their children?

The woman who lives next door to my daughter gives her 14 year old son a pack of twenty cigarettes a day. Then she moans that they can't afford to go on holiday Nowt so strange as folk, eh?

[Eddie]

What stupid responses!!

1) People do not HAVE to work there, they choose to.

2) What choice? You only have the choice to go where people don't smoke, not choice to go to pubs that are smoking or pubs that are non-smoking. No one says you have to go out to drink. Under the old system, no one said to the owner, you MUST allow smoking. They had the choice then, now they don't. You were still able to drink without being forced to smoke. No one allowed you to drink at home? Or at friends' houses?

395541[/snapback]

1) You take work where you can get it generally if you are looking for bar work.

2) True, but then no one said you can't wait until you go outside to have a smoke? Or that you can't just go and have your drink and smoke at home? Tell me why I have to allow someone to have their little comfort and increase their and my chances of death by having a smoke while I have a drink but they can't do us both a favour and not have a smoke while they have a drink. Why is their right the greater? It certainly isn't, when you consider the health effects of one of the rights versus that of the other.

[asianRover]

2) True, but then no one said you can't wait until you go outside to have a smoke? Or that you can't just go and have your drink and smoke at home? Tell me why I have to allow someone to have their little comfort and increase their and my chances of death by having a smoke while I have a drink but they can't do us both a favour and not have a smoke while they have a drink. Why is their right the greater? It certainly isn't, when you consider the health effects of one of the rights versus that of the other.

395559[/snapback]

it kinda seems to me that we're gonna go in circles over and over again with this issue. true, both of you guys do make a valid point. so why not just divide pubs into 2 sections for smokers and non smokers. problem solved. for me, im more concerned with what govts will restrict next and so forth.

[Eddie]

Yes, but most pubs either

a) don't have the interest

don't have the space and money

in order to actually make a divide that was closed off and properly ventilated.

[stuwilky]

it kinda seems to me that we're gonna go in circles over and over again with this issue. true, both of you guys do make a valid point. so why not just divide pubs into 2 sections for smokers and non smokers. problem solved. for me, im more concerned with what govts will restrict next and so forth.

395562[/snapback]

Having a no smoking area in a pub is like having a no pissing area in a swimming pool.

Pointless.

[asianRover]

ha ok, i for one do not ###### inside a pool no matter how urgent it may be.

mayb the govt should have set up some non-smoking pubs to cather to both smokers and non smokers instead of banning it entirely. but hey i understand it is cheaper to ban it on the whole.

[Eddie]

Unless they were going to impose it on certain ones and not others, which wouldn't have been fair, I doubt few would have chosen to become non-smoking.