On 6 Oct 2010 at 5:11pm jrsussex wrote:
Conservative MP for Bury North, David Nuttall, is going to introduce, in the House, the Public House and Private Members' Club (Smoking) Bill on the 13th October under the 10 minute rule
The intention to be that licensees be allowed to make their own choice as to whether to allow smoking on their licensed premises. Many in the licensed trade have sought this since before the implementation of the smoking ban, even if it means having to apply for a licence to allow smoking, which would be issued on proof of a competent air cleaning system having been installed.
Never forget that in 1997, prior to the election, the Labour party specifically stated that the proposed smoking ban would not include licensed premises or restaurants. Thousands of pubs have closed as a result of the ban,
On 6 Oct 2010 at 5:43pm Mike wrote:
This is an issue which is debated very hotly and almost constantly in teh pub trade. I think it is rather simplistic to state that thousands of pubs have closed as a result of the ban. Thousands of pubs have closed since the ban but there is not direct evidence that there is a causal link. I suspect that the ban did damage to many pubs but I also suspect that many would have closed anyway becasue of several otheer factors affecting the trade. There have been a number of polls conducted that show that a majority of thye public do not want a repeal of the ban and interestingly in at least one a majority of publicans backed the ban. The whole thing uis rather immaterial anyway because 10 mminute riule bills virtually never become law.
On 6 Oct 2010 at 5:58pm Clifford wrote:
As someone who gave up smoking two years ago, I feel I can take an almost balanced view on this. In the past there was nothing I liked more than to sit in the pub with a pint in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Now I enjoy the fact that temptation to smoke has been removed. But on principle I'm against bans. I never understood - and still don't - why there can't be smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs. It seems quite simple to me. Everyone would know exactly where they stood )and i don't mean standing outside shivering in the rain).
On 6 Oct 2010 at 7:11pm supporter wrote:
keep the ban who wants to breathe other people's nasty smelling smoke.
I want to choose which pub I go in not go to one and find it full of smoke.
On 6 Oct 2010 at 7:29pm jrsussex wrote:
Mike - You are correct in that not all closed licensed premises are as a direct result of the ban but many of them are. Even the Labour Government admitted that there were far more closures as a result of the ban than they expected. At about the time of the ban being implemented about 72% of regular pub customers smoked although only about 35% of the population at large did. They has always been a considerable difference between the level of smokers in general and that of those who used pubs. Even now approximately 25% of the population smoke. And yes of course there are licensees against a return of smoking but believe me they are in the minority, the majority would much rather see the lost income returned to their tills.
Clifford - That's right, it is all the licensed trade in general want. To let the public decide whether they want to use a smoking or a non-smoking pub,
Supporter - The comment above answers you I trust, I too am a non-smoker and would choose to frequent the non-smoking pub but there should be a choice. That is all that is being sought.
On 6 Oct 2010 at 8:05pm supporter wrote:
No there shuld not be a choice keep the ban.
NHS pays enough out now because of smoking,ending the ban would increase that figure.
It has been proved that people have found it easier to give up smoking since the ban.
On 6 Oct 2010 at 8:06pm stan wrote:
As I rarely go drinking these days I am not in the know but although I gave up smoking at age 10 (about 5 mins after I had started) I have never thought it my business to stop others from doing it. An unusual philosophy I grant you! Surely there is a case for letting people choose for themselves whether they can cope with a smoking room in a pub?
On 6 Oct 2010 at 9:21pm MC wrote:
I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke and hate being in confined areas with smokers. I don't think any smoker should think that they have a god-given right to so foully and obviously pollute the air that others around them have to share.
I also think it is a good thing that many pubs are closing (but am certain that the mains reasons are comparative high price of alcohol and the fact that a higher percentage of leisure time is now spent online and in more isolated pursuits. The smoking ban is not anywhere close to the main reason). Alcohol and tobacco are the two main causes of self-induced ill-health and it is imperative that society is weaned off the idea that it is natural, and a good thing to smoke and drink alcohol. Alcohol especially has an insidious effect upon our society, relations and our general feeling of safety and security.
I welcome both the smoking ban and reduction in the numbers of pubs.
For the life of me I can't see why alcohol is legal whilst marijuana and ecstasy are illegal. Alcohol is many, many time more dangerous than either of these drugs and causes infinitely more more harm. Having seen two people die slowly and very horribly from smoking related diseases I think the same can safely be said of cigarettes (if you want to give up smoking go to a hospital and find someone with advanced emphysema).
On 6 Oct 2010 at 11:40pm jrsussex wrote:
The excessive consumption of alcohol will lead to poor health and sometimes death. I was in the trade for more than 30 years, I know of far more people (generally under 30 years of age) dead from drugs, either directly of an OD or indirectly through suicide etc, I have known a number of people who had a little puff every day, most of them paranoid or their minds blown and stand there talking, in the main, rubbish. I am very aware of the evils of alcohol but you are suggesting that drugs are less dangerous. absolute nonsense. How many young people are dead due to dropping a single "E" and the same can be said of other so called recreational drugs. When you have served young people many times, and notice one night you haven't seen them for a while, and on asking are told they had died in one way or another from drug use believe me you turn against drugs of all description,, soft or hard. On a personal level I have witnessed 2 of my nephews die as a result of drugs. One by swimming in the Thames when he was out of his brains on coke and the other simply fell out of a window whilst also out of his brains.
Please don't anyone use the argument about marujuana being harmless, I think it may well be as you get older and are able to be sensible with its use, but tell me how many young people you have known on hard drugs that didn't start on soft drugs.
MC, I have read many of your posts and have thought them valid but on this one, in relation to your comments on drugs, you are way off beam.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 8:39am Clan D Stein wrote:
MC sounds like a right pleasure seeker! I imagine there idea of fun is a nice cup of Twinings and a public stoning!
On 7 Oct 2010 at 9:41am Down and Out wrote:
MC - there's a debate to be had about whether the issues with alcoholism are largely to do with pubs or the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets. There's no denying that pubs serve a valuable purpose in some sort of social cohesion and we would be a poorer society without them.
Besides which, it's for people to decide how they abuse their bodies if they wish, not you or the state. Do you really think there would be fewer social problems without any sort of drugs? I think that's naive - there would always be something else to fill that behavioural void.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 9:44am stan wrote:
At the heart of this discussion is our conception of what it is to be an adult. If you think people are bright enough to vote then maybe they should be able to take a descision like whether to smoke or not? I totally agree that all pubs should have large non-smoking areas but as someone who has respect for personal freedom I trust smokers to take responsibility for themselves. I would gradually introduce some kind of medical insurance related to unhealthy behaviour to protect the healthy minded from subsidising smokers health care. On the other hand maybe they are doing us a favour by limiting their lifespan so as to be less of a burden in old age. Some of us are a bit smug as we are not smokers but we often have other addictions that will kill us early like over eating,watching telly rather than doing something active or not pursuing the things that will make us happy long term.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 10:17am Independent thinker wrote:
JRS, this is obviously an issue that working in the pub trade for so many years you feel passionately about, and I'm very sorry to hear about your nephews, but I can't help feeling this means you've lost your objectivity here. Thousands of pubs have closed, but to blame them all on the smoking ban simply is far too simplistic. What about the rise of Pubcos with their drive for profits and treatment of pubs as real estate investments, increased rents, rising gas and electricity prices, taxes on beer, the credit crunch (the single biggest factor), people expecting good food (worst hit are "wet pubs" with no real meal facilities), cheap supermarket booze, young people pre-loading (getting drunk at home before going out), overall reduced alcohol consumption etc, etc. I would argue you'd be seeing huge numbers of pub closures even without the ban.
I hate seeing pubs close, but I back the smoking ban. I love going to pubs, but I hated the smoke. And even where you would argue I had a choice, the very few that had non-smoking sections, inevitably with a group of friends there'd be at least one smoker, and they never, ever, ever agreed to go to the non-smoking section. The smoking section would be full, and the non-smoking nearly empty, because smokers are addicts and act like addicts do. You'd have a group of non-smokers forced to sit in the smoking section, or end a friendship. Not a happy choice.
Finally, out of interest I did a quick google of official figures. In the UK in 2008 there were 1,952 drug related deaths, compared to 9,031 alcohol related ones. 48,217 drug related hospital admissions, 863,300 alcohol related ones. And for smoking the figures were 83,900 smoking related deaths and 440,900 hospital admissions for those over 35 years old. MC's conclusions might be a bit extreme, but he did get his facts right.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 10:56am jrsussex wrote:
Indendent Thinker - You clearly understand the licensed trade, whether that is due to you having been in it or not I do not know, your analysis is more or less correct. I am under no elusion that all pub closures have been as a result of the 2007 smoking ban, however following the implementaion of the ban the closures unquestionably accelerated considerably. There were 175 million fewer pints served in the first 9 months following the introdution of the ban.
I am a non-smoker and would always use the non-smoking area of the premises, this is not about reversing the smoking ban it is about freedom of choice for people. It could be achieved without causing discomfort to non-smokers. Foe example those licensees wishing to allow smoking on part or all of their premises would have to install an airchanging system of a standard set by Government, keeping air clean in this day and age really is a rather simple matter. There are state of the art systems that clear the air of matters much denser than cigarette smoke.
Finally your figures with regard alcoholism and the use of drugs. They are not, in my opinion correct and I will expalin why. When a coroner holds an inquest into the death of a young person who has for example committed suicide they do not necessarily, and often not at all, hear any evidence of long term drug abuse. I think that is because close relations do not want such information made public. In 1991 a customer and friend of mine at the age of 26 shot himself in the head. Following the inquest I asked the coroner why no mention had been made of his drug use as I was aware it had been found in his body. The reply was that the family had enough grief without that information being put into the public domain. Whilst I fully understand the reasons for that type of decision it does nothing in the fight to combat drug abuse. There are far more deaths connected to drug use than is generally recognised.
Also there is road traffic deaths caused by drug use, if the person killed has alcohol in his body then that becomes the cause of the accident, no mention that there was also drugs involved. What I am saying is that many deaths that are attributable to drug abuse go undetected due to the system.
Have I lost my objectivity? I may well have but I truly hate drugs and the people who peddle them. I know too many whose lives have been lost as a result of their drug use. And there I suppose is the truth of the matter, my use of the words "thier drug use", freedom of choice I suppose.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 11:22am stan wrote:
two excellent posts from IT and JR. Really thoughtful responses. Bit of a digression but does anyone have any ideas as how to promote the good social aspects of pubs without the negative health issues (which seem to involve a minority of users?)
On 7 Oct 2010 at 11:51am Independent thinker wrote:
JRS, I did work in pubs for many years, though I'm now just a customer. And for me, the smoking ban has dramatically improved my enjoyment of them. And I am one of the people who said they'd go to pubs more if they banned smoking and have, as I now take my children for meals in pubs which I would never have done before.
No arguments from me on dangers of drugs. My only point is that tobacco is one of the most dangerous drugs of all. It's as addictive as heroin, and is the only legal product I can think of that when used precisely as intended kills and maims a high percentage of its users. Sure, other than perhaps the occasional fire, smokers tend to die long, slow painful deaths when older, rather than the sudden deaths that young drug and alcohol victims sometimes do, but that doesn't reduce the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Most people start smoking when children (when was the last time you saw a 30 year old take up smoking?) when they are highly susceptible to peer group pressure and less able to make informed decisions. And from that point on are addicts, so I don't buy the freedom to choose argument peddled by FOREST and smoking supporters. There are a lot of measures that could be taken to help support the pub trade, but turning the clocks back to reintroduce smoking in them surely isn't the answer.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 11:52am Camberwell Carrot wrote:
Excellent posts I agree, both kowledgable and well explained. I am not cricicising or disagreeing with either, however they do both treat drugs, alcohol, and tobacco (nicotine) as separate things. All three are drugs. An alcohol related death is in truth a drug related death, and likewise with nicotine. The only difference is the social acceptability and legality of each. JR asks in an earlier post how many kids on hard drugs didn't start on soft drugs, well you could equally ask the question, how many kids smoking cannabis didn't start off smoking cigarettes?
On 7 Oct 2010 at 1:13pm Taff wrote:
So smoking and drinking are bad for each of us. Strange then that the governments emphasis for high taxes on both is seemingly essential.
Where will the coffers come from if we all gave them both up. Apologies for the pun.
The breweries and pub chains are as much to blame for pubs closing as any other related factor. They need to look closer in house first at what they can do.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 1:30pm sashimi wrote:
Nicotine is said to shorten the lives of those who smoke by an average of 13 years. It also kills those around smokers through secondary inhalation and sets an example of acceptability to the next generation. It is a bit like gun lobby defending the freedom to bear arms in USA to say that people should have a right to smoke. I don't think we should criminalise smoking. But I don't think we should do anything at all to encourage it.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 1:49pm stan wrote:
Not many advocates of liberty in a town that purports to celebrate Tom Paine and his legacy.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 2:48pm Ed Can Do wrote:
You only have to walk around town on a Friday night to see the effect that the smoking ban has had on the pub trade, primarily in that there's twice as many people outside on teh street smoking than inside. I appreciate that a lot of people prefer pubs with no smoking but if it was up to the Landlord to choose smoking or non-smoking then everyone would have a choice and those of you who prefer smoke-free pubs could go to those quite happily (And sit there more or less on your own, surrounded by kids. There's nothing worse than a pub with kids in). I remember when the ban was first proposed there were a lot of people saying they'd go to the pub more if it was smoke-free but the simple fact is that people who smoke or at least don't mind smoke spend more in pubs than those who don't. Brighton had three non-smoking pubs well before the ban and each went bust within six months of opening because not enough people wanted to go to a smoke-free pub.
With regards to "How many kids have died from taking one ecstacy tablet?", the answer is no more than a couple a year. The difference is that when a kid dies from their first hit of Miaow Miaow or whatever the press makes a big deal of it, plus it's only their first according to their parents who find it hard to believe that little Tarquin was a massive coke head. Not only does drinking and smoking kill significantly more people than drugs, alcohol related crime is also significantly more prevalent than drug related crime. If drugs themselves weren't illegal, drug-related crime wouldn't even make it onto the crime statistics compared with the violence, vandalism and road crashes caused by drinkers.
I think people should be free to do what they want to themselves frankly. Sure, if it affects others than it should be stopped so I'd support tougher sentencing for drink or drug related crime but banning things because they'll kill you after 50 years is stupid. In terms of cost to the state, the revenue from tax on cigarettes dwarfs the cost to the NHS of smokers. Smokers pretty much pay for the NHS, cutting their numbers would ironically result in poorer service for people who don't smoke.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 3:00pm neukomer wrote:
I like the system in Portugal.
If the landlord smokes, then it is a smoking bar. Otherwise smoke free.
So the customer gets to choose.
On 7 Oct 2010 at 5:03pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
Seems to me the sensible solution is smoking rooms in pubs, that don't filter through to the non smokers. Although that does mean getting smoking and non smoking bar staff. I remember coming home after working shifts at the pub with streaming eyes from the effect of the smoke. Plus of course the stinking clothes.
Also kissing a smoker is pretty unleasant (taste wise) !
On 7 Oct 2010 at 5:55pm not from around here wrote:
I'm pretty much with JRsussex and Stan on this.
I absolutely HATE smoking, always have done but would defend the freedom of other to choose to smoke if they wish to.
In a civilised society we MUST have choice and personal responsibility - if people choose to smoke - let them!
On 7 Oct 2010 at 6:20pm Peter Byron wrote:
Both sets of my grandparents smoked and drank like troopers and all lived to be over 90yrs, so give CHOICE, half pub can smoke the bores that want to live forever (they wont) can go in the other half. Only time to stop it is around people eating, End off. Best Peter
On 7 Oct 2010 at 6:21pm Peter Byron wrote:
Trust me Brixtie I smell divine, and some non smokers (like mini cabs in London) are far worse to bear. Love, Peter x
On 7 Oct 2010 at 8:33pm Peter Byron wrote:
MC, My opinion of your intellect has just crashed. I stink? Excuse me, I visit Miller Harris, Monmouth St WC, on a very regular basis and purchase Tabac (don't panic) it is a fine mens scent. Now, if you do not like stinking smokers you only need (in an ideal world) to go to a non-smoking area, that my friend is true choice. I hope when I am 90yrs I am able to remind you of your folly. Best, regrets Peter
On 8 Oct 2010 at 1:36pm supporter wrote:
what a load of rubbish Peter Byron seems to be posting on every subject going on this board.
Must be very sad or just plain boring.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 2:05pm Grunge wrote:
Supporter - you are rather hard on Peter's postings. Quite often he says just the right thing to help everyone lighten up, and his invariable good humour in the face of adversity, no doubt helped by liberal quantities of a good wine, is encouraging.
However, Peter, I have to say that if you are a smoker, you will stink. You can't avoid it. Other smokers possibly won't notice it, but all non-smokers will. Not even the most expensive aftershave or mouthwash can save you.
How many non smokers on this thread, after an evening in a smoky pub, have sunk their weary heads onto their pillows only to realise that they, too, smell like an ash tray?
Peter, if Caroline or Brixtonbelle are non-smokers I don't fancy your chances!
But good luck anyway, and best to you.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 4:54pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I can't see anything wrong in having smoking and non-smoking pubs. People could vote with their feet, and we'd see if all those non-smokers who said they'd use pubs if it wasn't for the smoke really do.
I'm a part-time smooker, I only smoke when I'm having a drink and I've virtually stopped going to pubs in the winter as I can't be arsed to go out in the cold every time I want a fag. Not having one reduces my enjoyment of the grog to the point I'd rather not bother.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 4:56pm jrsussex wrote:
In my previous posts I do not believe I have promoted, in any way, the consumption of alcohol, the smoking of tobacco (I am a non-smoker) or the use of illegal drugs.
The difference in their use is alcohol, generally speaking, will only harm you if you consume it excessively. We all know that smoking is very likely to cause health problems, possibly death, if used long term whereas the use of illegal drugs can, and has, whether you want to accept it or not, seriously injured or caused death to the user at the first time of calling. That clearly indicates substantial differences between the three addictive products.
The argument you appear to be making MC is that pure drugs are OK, that they have never caused deaths. Have you never heard of a pure batch of heroin being put onto the streets, when even the police have warned drug users of its lethalness? To say that pure MDMA is not responsible for any deaths is a pointless point to make. What that statement does is to reinforce my sentiments on drug traders, they do not care at all about their "customers" welfare, they will sell them anything as long as they get paid. How does the drug user know the mix of the drug they have just bought? They don't of course. You appear to be saying that that is OK, it is a risk but so is everything else in life. I do not agree with that view.
I spent 32 years operating public houses, discotheques and nightclubs. That doesn't make me a world expert on the subject of drug use but it did give me a genuine insight into the problems it creates in society. The high level of mainly petty crime and burglaries committed to fund a users habit is just a part of the problem, there are families torn apart, young children abused in one way or another because parental care becomes the last thing on mum or dad?s minds. The real sorrow is going to a funeral of what was a lovely young person and watching the faces of those that loved them. Do that a few times, as I unfortunately have, and your view on drug use may well change.
On your comments relating to different cultures, in this case Muslims, I worked in Saudi Arabia for three years. We used to drink alcohol (spirits) regularly, most of the rich Saudi's have alcohol to hand and love throwing a party for Westerners. When they visit Western countries, among their first priorities are using clubs to drink and obtain female company.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 8:04pm MC wrote:
You represent pub owners in at least one official capacity (or have done). You bemoan the closing of pubs and blame it on the smoking ban. By representing pubs and opposing the smoking ban you support alcohol and cigarettes... and by association support all the pain that addiction to these drugs bring.
Drug dealers: "they will sell anything as long as they get paid".
If alcohol was illegal they'd sell that too... whether it made you blind or not. It is immaterial what they sell. The material fact is they sell it 'cos it's illegal and people want it. The drugs would be pure if they were legal, as alcohol is now (more or less).
I am not promoting the use of drugs (inc. alcohol), pure or not. Please do not think that.
I am making the case that there is little difference between some drugs and alcohol and that *by a very, very long way* the main difference is their legal status, something decided by society/state. It is almost solely this status that decides their purity... and that is part of my point.
There is no two ways about it, even as things stand at the moment (i.e. one drug legal, others not) that alcohol is much more harmful than (normal) marijuana or pure mdma (ecstacy) and that it causes considerably more damage to our society.
You went to the funeral of drug casualties. I (and many, many others) have been to the funerals of people whose bodies have given up fighting alcohol addiction or emphysema, or cigarette induced cancer and many other diseases that debilitated the living and then ultimately killed them, painfully and slowly over a long period of time that sometimes constituted a third of their lifespan.
Rich western-mixing Saudis are not at all typical of the world's 1.5billion Muslims. I am honestly quite surprised you raise them as representative.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 8:19pm jrsussex wrote:
MC - This has, in my opinion, been a very good thread (not because I started it) due to it bringing out differing views on an emotional subject. I admit to having taken on board a different aspect to the problems we are discussing here. Whether posters are in agreement or not some interesting views/opinions have given me some thoughts that I would not have had other than through this forum.
In your various posts on different subjects you have come across as sensible, intelligent so although we will not always agree hopefully we will accept each others opinion, even if that means agreeing to disagree.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 8:56pm Independent thinker wrote:
This topic has veered off in all kinds of interesting directions, but there's one final point I want to address. It's all these people saying we should have a choice. Before the ban non-smokers faced a choice of sitting in smoke filled pubs, or staying home, while smokers could puff away in pretty much every pub and restaurant in the country. I don't remember any smokers calling on the spirit of Tom Paine to fight that injustice. Now, even though smokers can still choose to go to every pub and restaurant in the country, and despite all they're being asked to do is nip outside for a few minutes when they want to light up, it's Mel Gibson in Braveheart time. If smoking sections, or smoking pubs, were brought back in, which sounds so reasonable in theory, I'd be forced to sit in them again because my smoking friends will flat out refuse to go anywhere else, just as they did before the ban on those rare occasions where there was an option. Why would these otherwise friendly, and generous people act so selfishly? Because they're drug addicts. The idea might work if smokers were only friends with smokers, and non-smokers only friends with non-smokers, but I suspect most non-smokers are like me. They might wish their friends didn't smoke, and hate smoking with a passion, but they aren't prepared to end a valued friendship over it. That's why non-smoking pubs struggled, and non-smoking sections remained half empty. As I said before, there's all kinds of measures that can and should be taken to help out the pub trade, but bringing back smoking should never be one of them.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 9:33pm jrsussex wrote:
Independent thinker - Have to admit you are right on that one. A number of times non-smokers have commented to me that when they go to the pub they invariably sit outside with the smokers because that is where the good atmosphere is.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 9:36pm MC wrote:
One more thing:
> there are families torn apart, young children abused in one way or another because parental care becomes the last thing on mum or dad's minds.
Sounds like the children of alcoholics to me... usually quickly reduced to the children of a sole parent alcoholic... and then the state (yes, I do have experience).
I hope that you are open minded and the fact that you post here, inviting comment indicates that you are (I hope that I am open minded too... but there are some things I am very decided upon which would take an awful lot of intelligent input to change)... however....
I'm sorry to say it, but to me you represent the unthinking, the closed, the well-conditioned, the people who lack sufficient imagination to look in from the outside, the people stuck entirely and completely in the here and now, the product of a very small and distinct moment in time and entirely made by, and limited by, the time that they have been brought up in.
Or as a recently popular band (in the scale of things) put it, "just another brick in that wall".
However, I'm with Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
He also said "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." You to me, represent the establishment, the Daily Mail and the worst of the Conservatives. And I think they're dangerous.... and increasingly so (from this camp come bigotry, tea parties, religious intolerance and war).
I'll always accept your opinion and agree to disagree. I love the fact that you post here and welcome your points of view... not least because they make me surer of mine. :-)
On 8 Oct 2010 at 9:46pm jrsussex wrote:
MC - All comments OK other than that of the Daily Mail, please do not label me with that lot. Out of interest I read the Telegraph, Daily Express and the Sun (for a laugh) each day. The sad thing is the Sun consistently backs the winner of each elaction, what does that say about the UK?
On 8 Oct 2010 at 9:53pm MC wrote:
Daily Mail is from the same genus. I didn't say that you read it.
Says more about the cleverness of Murdoch than the UK. If anything it says that we are thick and easily manipulated.
On 8 Oct 2010 at 10:31pm stan wrote:
please don't link the tea party movement with racism, bigotry and fundamentalism. This is a slur put out by the democrats and lazy journalists and has been debunked many times. There are many black and hispanic supporters of this movement now and it is continuing to grow. There may be racists and fundamentalists within it but that doesn't make it any different to any other party or movement.
On 9 Oct 2010 at 12:32am brixtonbelle wrote:
Let's not bring the tea party into it. Please.
Great thread and good comments. MC you made me laugh aloud with your switch from being open minded and reasonable to launching a thinly veiled attack on JRS, with just that one word............however.
On 9 Oct 2010 at 8:14am jrsussex wrote:
MC - You now appear to be getting a little paranoid. Your comments about "Sounds like the children of alcoholics to me....." implies you are in denial about the health and death problems created by drug use. I have said in a previous post that many drug-related deaths are not recorded as such, certainly at the inquests of my two nephews there was no mention of any drug whatsoever, or the customer that shot himself despite them being the actual cause of the deaths. There are many examples of this. I have personally witnessed the effects of drug use over a sustained period of time as a result of which I am against it.
Let me be clear, I hate drug use and trading, simple as that and I will always do all I can to stop young people falling into the habit. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but do not make weak attempts to dissuade me that I am wrong.
On 9 Oct 2010 at 6:05pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
JRS - you really should read the Independent or Guardian as well to get a more balanced viewpoint. Daily Express - I'm surprised at you ?! You may as wellbe ready the daily Snail