Jump to content

Smoking Ban - The Isle Of Man


%age
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had a discussion on the smoking ban with a bloke a couple of weeks ago Nd he reckons that when the ban comes in that pubs will never be the same and people will stop going, etc. I agree pubs will never be the same (for the better) but spent this weekend doing a sort of survey.

 

I went to 4 different pubs in 3 different parts of the Island and spent around half an hour in each noting the number of smokers. I also revisited the first two yesterday for a recount at a different time of day (mid afternoon)

 

Pub 1 had 13 people in it and no smokers. Pub 2 had 8 people, one smoker. Pub 3 had about 30 people and 4 smokers. Pub 4 had around 40 people and only three smokers that I saw (could not see into one room very well but it appeared to be a family with kids and two other adults). The revisit of pub 1 yesterday afternoon found it very busy with people even taking drinks outside to sit on the wall in the sun. There may have been smokers outside I did not count them. Inside there were around 30 people and only 3 smokers (one with a pipe). Pub 2 revisit yesterday early evening found about 12 people including 5 smokers. However, the 4 of the five were in a group and that sort of encouraged them to smoke more. They were misbehaving and pretty much on their final warning before being chucked out.

 

In general, my findings are that few people actually smoke, but the smoke that they produce annoys the hell out of everyone in the vacinity, whether they smoke or not. It annoys the most when people are eating.

 

It was ironic though in pub 4 when a bloke was getting hot under the collar because someone on the next table was smoking while he was eating. As soon as he had finished his main course he lit a fag and started smoking himself

An excellent piece of research, which clearly helps to prove:

 

I went to 4 different pubs in 3 different parts of the Island and spent around half an hour in each noting the number of smokers. I also revisited the first two yesterday for a recount at a different time of day (mid afternoon)

Smokers clearly all have their fags out in front of them at all times, smoke constantly, or have some kind of badge that identifies them.

 

Pub 2 revisit yesterday early evening found about 12 people including 5 smokers. However, the 4 of the five were in a group and that sort of encouraged them to smoke more. They were misbehaving and pretty much on their final warning before being chucked out.

All smokers are clearly evil b*****ds and make trouble at every opportunity.

 

The revisit of pub 1 yesterday afternoon found it very busy with people even taking drinks outside to sit on the wall in the sun.

Global warming is a fact. Sunshine on the IOM at a weekend? Better get that into the next IPCC global warming as it will convince anyone!

 

In general, my findings are that few people actually smoke, but the smoke that they produce annoys the hell out of everyone in the vacinity, whether they smoke or not. It annoys the most when people are eating.

Clearly proves that there is obviously a mysterious benefactor chucking £20 million quid into the treasury each year from tobacco duty. We should start another thread to thank him/her.

 

Pubs 1 to 4. I went to 4 different pubs in 3 different parts of the Island...

Research people are all clearly alcoholics and probably drink-drive all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My vision of Albert Tatlock being an intelligent, balanced and informed debater has over the past hour or so disappeare

 

in a puff of smoke.

 

 

Spot on. I agree totally.

 

Uncle Albert - for the record, the two pubs visited twice are in the same area and walking distance. Pub 3 took a lovely relaxing hour's train ride (you probably wouldn't like that though as the steam train does not allow smoking). Finally, yes I did drive to pub 4 and my diet coke was very refreshing, thanks.

 

You can grumble as much as you want. Next year the ban will come into place, you will still go to the pub, you will still moan. Perhaps you should do a review as I did for yourself. You may be surprised. On the other hand you would probably never admit it. It would go too much against your pro-smoking stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vision of Albert Tatlock being an intelligent, balanced and informed debater has over the past hour or so disappeare

 

in a puff of smoke.

 

 

Spot on. I agree totally.

 

Uncle Albert - for the record, the two pubs visited twice are in the same area and walking distance. Pub 3 took a lovely relaxing hour's train ride (you probably wouldn't like that though as the steam train does not allow smoking). Finally, yes I did drive to pub 4 and my diet coke was very refreshing, thanks.

 

You can grumble as much as you want. Next year the ban will come into place, you will still go to the pub, you will still moan. Perhaps you should do a review as I did for yourself. You may be surprised. On the other hand you would probably never admit it. It would go too much against your pro-smoking stance.

Er - my post was a tongue in cheek post.

 

Mobbing me won't change my views on people having a right to smoke in some pubs. Some of us don't have nothing to do and all day to do it to repeat ad infinitum what we have covered in great detail in earlier posts - and silly posts deserve silly replies. Starting new threads that miss out some well covered issues are just people trolling IMO.

 

I have posted several major posts on here about people's civil liberties - but it is like talking to a brick wall with some people. When the sh1t hits the fan on something you care about I shall make a mental note to remind you of that at the time.

 

As for 'Uncle Albert' - always remember that avatars can be very misleading ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The post was indeed light hearted and tongue in cheek - good one, Albert.

 

However, I always thought that a reference on this forum to an "Uncle Albert" was for an entirely different Albert. He who's name we best not mention.

 

Mmmmhh.....unless 'Albert Tatlock' is a pseudonym for THE Albert to which I refer.....I wonder....... :ph34r:

 

 

Edited to add, that my avatar is about spot on.

Edited by Theo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, my findings are that few people actually smoke, but the smoke that they produce annoys the hell out of everyone in the vacinity, whether they smoke or not. It annoys the most when people are eating.

Clearly proves that there is obviously a mysterious benefactor chucking £20 million quid into the treasury each year from tobacco duty. We should start another thread to thank him/her.

 

 

 

how much of that hits the manx coffers then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, my findings are that few people actually smoke, but the smoke that they produce annoys the hell out of everyone in the vacinity, whether they smoke or not. It annoys the most when people are eating.

Clearly proves that there is obviously a mysterious benefactor chucking £20 million quid into the treasury each year from tobacco duty. We should start another thread to thank him/her.

 

 

 

how much of that hits the manx coffers then?

Errm... shouldn't that be 'coughers'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah...

 

Smokers on the other hand, can stand around and ACTIVELY POISON and cause GENUINE DISCOMFORT to huge numbers of people, and be safe in the knowledge that no one can do a damn thing about it.

 

Blah, pottymouth, blah

 

So campaign for a total ban on tobacco...and find some real (rather than Thought Police) evidence that secondary exposure to cigarette smoke 'poisons' people. In a way that aerosols, perfumes, cooking, open fires, air pollution, natural airborne stuff doesn't.

 

And before you cite Roy Castle, remember that lungs aren't designed to be pressurised and used like a trumpet player does either.

 

Smoking is just plain unpleasant - that's first and foremost why it should be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking is just plain unpleasant - that's first and foremost why it should be banned.

 

That's in your opinion. I like it lots. I find it most agreeable.

 

I DON'T like drinking very much though - it seems to be a factor in most of the crime we see reported, and first and foremost that's why I think it should be banned.

 

See - I'm getting the hang of this "I don't enjoy it so I want to stop anyone else enjoying it" way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being drunk is not *supposed* to be a legal defence - but all those in the dock still seem to use it to great effect.

 

As to the negligence - I think you'd have to provide cast-iron evidence that my smoking poisoned anyone (and if it did, don't THEY have an equal responsibility to avoid my smoke?). Seems we have a new breed of intolerants who willingly enter smoking establishments just so they can feign coughs and make a bloody fuss!

 

Even the most fervent anti-smokers have trouble proving the effects of secondary smoking, despite the rampant current propaganda campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the negligence - I think you'd have to provide cast-iron evidence that my smoking poisoned anyone (and if it did, don't THEY have an equal responsibility to avoid my smoke?).

 

As far as I'm aware it's not something that's been put to the test in court yet (as far as exposure to tobacco smoke goes), but legally everyone has a responsibility to not do something that harms those around them. If you do, you're responsible. That's why you can't leave bear-traps on your door step when Jehova's witnesses are doing the rounds. It's why employers are not allowed to expose their staff to asbestos, and soon tobacco.

 

THEY don't have equal responsibilty to avoid your smoke. That's like saying you have a responsiblilty to duck when someone turns around with a ladder on their shoulder, or not knock on someone's door in case there's a bear-trap hidden nearby.

 

Even the most fervent anti-smokers have trouble proving the effects of secondary smoking, despite the rampant current propaganda campaign.

 

Ah! You're the sort of person who doesn't think the smoke from tobacco harms people. Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do hope that smoking genuinely harms other people around me, the thought of taking some whining pussy non-smokers to the grave with me will keep the smile on my face long after I'm in the ground! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...