On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:29:26 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:13:53 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>So we go back to the original question - why should a simple majority
>>control the private decisions of individuals? i.e. why can't a group
>>of private individuals get together and open a smoking club, and other
>>individuals choose to work at the club.
>
>Why can't the same individuals take it in turns to smoke in each other's
>homes/toilets without calling it a club?

Because they want to pay someone to provide service, and a more
interesting / relaxing environment, than their homes - why have clubs
at all - why not just have people going around to each-others houses
to get pissed?

>Why can individuals spend 12 hours in a plane without smoking, but can't eat a
>meal in a restaurant, without having a smoldering cigarette? Because they are
>selfish bastards?

Who talked about restaurants?

Jim.

Knight Of The Road <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Jim Ley" <[email protected]
>
>
> > wrote > So we go back to the original question - why should a simple
> > majority
> > control the private decisions of individuals? i.e. why can't a group
> > of private individuals get together and open a smoking club, and other
> > individuals choose to work at the club.
>
>
> Completely agree. Also, bizarrely, a truck driver is not allowed to smoke in
> the cab of his lorry, even while he is on a break or rest, even though the
> cab is also effectively his home during the week.
>
> I don't smoke but the vast majority of drivers are planning to ignore the
> law and this is never a good situation.

I still see people ignoring the mobile phone law. People ignored the
seatbelt law too when it first came out,

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:57:05 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:29:26 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:13:53 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>So we go back to the original question - why should a simple majority
>>>control the private decisions of individuals? i.e. why can't a group
>>>of private individuals get together and open a smoking club, and other
>>>individuals choose to work at the club.
>>
>>Why can't the same individuals take it in turns to smoke in each other's
>>homes/toilets without calling it a club?
>
>Because they want to pay someone to provide service, and a more
>interesting / relaxing environment, than their homes - why have clubs
>at all - why not just have people going around to each-others houses
>to get pissed?

It happens. Why not
>
>>Why can individuals spend 12 hours in a plane without smoking, but can't eat a
>>meal in a restaurant, without having a smoldering cigarette? Because they are
>>selfish bastards?
>
>Who talked about restaurants?

I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the Netherlands.
--

Martin

Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:29:26 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:13:53 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
> >>So we go back to the original question - why should a simple majority
> >>control the private decisions of individuals? i.e. why can't a group
> >>of private individuals get together and open a smoking club, and other
> >>individuals choose to work at the club.
> >
> >Why can't the same individuals take it in turns to smoke in each other's
> >homes/toilets without calling it a club?
>
> Because they want to pay someone to provide service, and a more
> interesting / relaxing environment, than their homes - why have clubs
> at all - why not just have people going around to each-others houses
> to get pissed?
>
> >Why can individuals spend 12 hours in a plane without smoking, but can't
> >eat a meal in a restaurant, without having a smoldering cigarette?
> >Because they are selfish bastards?
>
> Who talked about restaurants?

We did. If you think this should be about choice, then let people choose
to smoke wherever they feel like it. Why shouldn't people be allowed to
smoke on a plane? You don't _have_ to fly, after all.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:57:05 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
[]
> >Who talked about restaurants?
>
> I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the Netherlands.

I noticed in Riga that they even have non-smoking areas in the outdoor
seating. Now, _that's_ civilised!

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:01:53 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Knight Of The Road <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Ley" <[email protected]
>>
>>
>> > wrote > So we go back to the original question - why should a simple
>> > majority
>> > control the private decisions of individuals? i.e. why can't a group
>> > of private individuals get together and open a smoking club, and other
>> > individuals choose to work at the club.
>>
>>
>> Completely agree. Also, bizarrely, a truck driver is not allowed to smoke in
>> the cab of his lorry, even while he is on a break or rest, even though the
>> cab is also effectively his home during the week.
>>
>> I don't smoke but the vast majority of drivers are planning to ignore the
>> law and this is never a good situation.
>
>I still see people ignoring the mobile phone law. People ignored the
>seatbelt law too when it first came out,

A truck driver in Belgium damaged a motorway bridge and killed himself
yesterday, whilst doing something that distracted him.
--

Martin

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:01:53 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Knight Of The Road <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Ley" <[email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> > wrote > So we go back to the original question - why should a simple
> >> > majority
> >> > control the private decisions of individuals? i.e. why can't a group
> >> > of private individuals get together and open a smoking club, and other
> >> > individuals choose to work at the club.
> >>
> >>
> >> Completely agree. Also, bizarrely, a truck driver is not allowed to
> >> smoke in the cab of his lorry, even while he is on a break or rest,
> >> even though the cab is also effectively his home during the week.
> >>
> >> I don't smoke but the vast majority of drivers are planning to ignore the
> >> law and this is never a good situation.
> >
> >I still see people ignoring the mobile phone law. People ignored the
> >seatbelt law too when it first came out,
>
> A truck driver in Belgium damaged a motorway bridge and killed himself
> yesterday, whilst doing something that distracted him.

Quite a number of my delays on trains have occurred because drivers have
hit bridges over/below train lines, and they've had to be inspected for
safety reasons. Since 2000, most train deaths in the UK have been caused
by road drivers.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:04:21 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:57:05 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>[]
>> >Who talked about restaurants?
>>
>> I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the Netherlands.
>
>I noticed in Riga that they even have non-smoking areas in the outdoor
>seating. Now, _that's_ civilised!

The problem I foresee in UK is that sitting outside a pub on a sunny day will
no longer be an option.
--

Martin

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote

> A truck driver in Belgium damaged a motorway bridge and killed himself
> yesterday, whilst doing something that distracted him.

Not while he was stationary.


--
Regards, Vince.

International Trucking -

Germany Calling (NEW 30th June 2007) http://tinyurl.com/yv2jlw

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:04:21 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:57:05 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
> >[]
> >> >Who talked about restaurants?
> >>
> >> I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the
Netherlands.
> >
> >I noticed in Riga that they even have non-smoking areas in the outdoor
> >seating. Now, _that's_ civilised!
>
> The problem I foresee in UK is that sitting outside a pub on a sunny day will
> no longer be an option.

Depends on the wind. I've already sat outside pubs surrounded by
smokers, and it's not been too bad. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised
if some pubs saw the civility of having outside non-smoking areas
eventually. Especially as people get used to smoke-free inside areas.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Pres. Blair- May, 2007

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:02:44 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the Netherlands.

I wish I could!

Jim.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:03:34 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Who talked about restaurants?
>
>We did. If you think this should be about choice, then let people choose
>to smoke wherever they feel like it. Why shouldn't people be allowed to
>smoke on a plane? You don't _have_ to fly, after all.

No... as that would be imposing on the others who couldn't choose not
to - my point was about it's not possible to choose to even if
everyone wants to make the same choice to smoke.

I am ecstatic that restaurants are all no smoking, but I don't like
that people can't get together and agree to have smoking ones in
private clubs.

Jim.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:04:34 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:01:53 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>I still see people ignoring the mobile phone law. People ignored the
>>seatbelt law too when it first came out,
>
>A truck driver in Belgium damaged a motorway bridge and killed himself
>yesterday, whilst doing something that distracted him.

A euphemism?

Jim.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:09:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:04:21 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:57:05 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:
>> >[]
>> >> >Who talked about restaurants?
>> >>
>> >> I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the
>Netherlands.
>> >
>> >I noticed in Riga that they even have non-smoking areas in the outdoor
>> >seating. Now, _that's_ civilised!
>>
>> The problem I foresee in UK is that sitting outside a pub on a sunny day will
>> no longer be an option.
>
>Depends on the wind. I've already sat outside pubs surrounded by
>smokers, and it's not been too bad.

It's bloody awful in NL.

>Even then, I wouldn't be surprised
>if some pubs saw the civility of having outside non-smoking areas
>eventually.

Upwind with a wind sock provided?

> Especially as people get used to smoke-free inside areas.
--

Martin

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:09:55 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:02:44 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I'm talking about restaurants. We have given up eating out in the Netherlands.
>
>I wish I could!

LOL

Take sandwiches. :-)
--

Martin