Smoking in ground...

[johnybig32]

Just thought i would let you know...My dad is a steward and has just come back from his pre-season meeting and smoking has been outlawed everywhere in the ground....

[gaz kford]

Good :cool:

[johnybig32]

My thoughts too....;)

[Taffywolf]

Although I'm not a smoker it would make more sense if they just allowed it in one stand. It could stop alot of people going to games.

[Wombourne Wolf]

Good

[PabloWolfo]

Exactly how is this a suprise, what with the ground being an enclosed space?!?! If people take smoking more seriously than their football, then stuff 'em.....

[wanderer24]

Although I'm not a smoker it would make more sense if they just allowed it in one stand. It could stop alot of people going to games.

No it won't. They said that about pubs and restaurants but by and large it just doesn't happen. I don't mind it being an ex-smoker but people shouldn't have to put up with it. It's law anyway so they can't pick and choose.

[johnybig32]

i want to see a steward try and stop people from smoking...They never seem to do anything in all honesty, my dad included ;)

[wanderer24]

i want to see a steward try and stop people from smoking...They never seem to do anything in all honesty, my dad included ;)

They won't need to, they will just tell the police who will give them an automatic fine.

[PabloWolfo]

They won't need to, they will just tell the police who will give them an automatic fine.

If anyone smokes in the ground, they'll get far too much grief from people around them for it to be worth their while...

[The_Blade]

Good.

[John]

A thread full of retards.
I don't smoke, but if it bothered me I'd have moved to the no smoking section.
I'd rather have a smoker by me than a drunk. I hope that one day soon they start enforcing the law about being drunk at a sporting event.

[johnybig32]

Agree John...i hate it wehn some smelly bint comes and sits close by stinking of alcohol...

[Scott.Cooper]

A thread full of retards.
I don't smoke, but if it bothered me I'd have moved to the no smoking section.


Yeah, because the smoke doesn't travel into the no smoking area does it.

[Welsh Y'am Y'am]

Wolves in having to abide by the current law shocker.

[John]

Yeah, because the smoke doesn't travel into the no smoking area does it.
Not when I sat there. The flanks of the Billy Wright upper have 40mph winds usually.

[John]

Wolves in having to abide by the current law shocker.
Seeing as each stand is open on 3 sides and is neither enclosed or substantially enclosed, I'm guessing this is a policy of the club, not complying with the law. Alot of work places have used this law to ban smoking without a backlash, when it is really only company policy.

[wanderer24]

http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/22613001-B5AF-43EA-BA63-AD9949741393/117532/SmokingBanFINALCIRCULATED.pdf

You need to be an architect to clarify these rules.

[djackl]

http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/22613001-B5AF-43EA-BA63-AD9949741393/117532/SmokingBanFINALCIRCULATED.pdf

You need to be an architect to clarify these rules.

John in incorrect assertion shocker?

[gaz kford]

A thread full of retards.
I don't smoke, but if it bothered me I'd have moved to the no smoking section.
I'd rather have a smoker by me than a drunk. I hope that one day soon they start enforcing the law about being drunk at a sporting event.
The drunk may fall asleep or be ejected but the smoker will carry on smoking i know who i would rather sit by.....
And as for a thread full of retards!!! do you know the reason the ban was brought in?

[John]

John in incorrect assertion shocker?
Have you read the document. It states clearly what I have said.
In fact using the 50% rule, not a single stand at molinuex comes under the substaintially enclosed rule and so it is not illegal to smoke in them, it is just club policy.

[John]

do you know the reason the ban was brought in?


Because 600 people a year die from secondary smoking.
Driving is more dangerous, should we ban it?

[gaz kford]

Because 600 people a year die from secondary smoking.
Driving is more dangerous, should we ban it?
So how many die from Primary smoking & as for Secondary i think you may be a bit wide of the mark.

[The Vicar]

To stop the retards from smoking?

the rules are ridiculous and good on wolves for banning this disgusting and harmful habit. If you are allocated a seat for each game, even if it is not enclosed or substantially enclosed, why should you have to put up with some smelly herbert covering you in cancer gas?

just can't wait to see the lovely barmaids in the Tap through clean air;)

[gaz kford]

Because 600 people a year die from secondary smoking.
Driving is more dangerous, should we ban it?
can I also had the ban was brought in to protect the employee from secondary smoke.

[John]

If you are allocated a seat for each game, even if it is not enclosed or substantially enclosed, why should you have to put up with some smelly herbert covering you in cancer gas?


Why didn't you sit in the no smoking section before?

[John]

So how many die from Primary smoking & as for Secondary i think you may be a bit wide of the mark.


Primary smoking has nothing to do with the ban. The only way to stop primary smoking is to ban smoking.

[gaz kford]

Primary smoking has nothing to do with the ban. The only way to stop primary smoking is to ban smoking.Can i bring your attention to post 25..;)

[John]

Can i bring your attention to post 25..;)


So you agree the ban was bought in to protect the 600 people a year who die from secondary smoking?
What else should we ban?

[gaz kford]

So you agree the ban was bought in to protect the 600 people a year who die from secondary smoking?
What else should we ban?
So if that's the case! being a barman must be one of the must dangerous job in the world if 600 0f them die every year. And you like going home with your hair & clothes smelling of smoke!

[The Vicar]

Why didn't you sit in the no smoking section before?

Because I preferreed sitting where I would get a better view/atmosphere.

I also previously went in pubs that had smoke (tell me one that didn't) but since the ban I have noticed how much more enjoyable it is. I can even take my kids in with me without fear of smoke related illness. i wasn't a particular advocate of non-smoking, but life is now so much better if you like a beer and like to take your kids with you. At the end of the day, why should I be restricted in what I do by people who are violating my freedom to go about my business without harming others?

[gaz kford]

Something tell's me John is on his back foot! :D

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yes, you've outwitted him Bamber, with your "600 barmen die a year" post.

[PabloWolfo]

The fact of the matter is that Molineux is going to be a more pleasant place on match days without the smell of smoke around. Besides John (whom I'm assuming is a bit of a fetishist for really not minding smoke) I think we can all agreed it's a ****ing foul smell.

By law or by club policy I don't really care, but it's a good decision to ban smoking in the ground.

[gaz kford]

Yes, you've outwitted him Bamber, with your "600 barmen die a year" post.
And for one moment i thought i was still on your ignore list.... :rolleyes:

[wolf of sedgley]

On the subject of smoking, i've just seen this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56176065@N00/213179011/

[shenfieldwolf]

I'll miss the pleasure of a half time drag. :-(

I wonder if they'll give smokers a pass to nip out at half time for a quickie? I doubt it.

Obviously, for those zealots who think that anyone having a crafty fag in the ground was (and now is) essentially committing a punishable crime, this new policy is undoubtedly a godsend given that it provides you with a great opportunity to take the moral high ground and carp on about the terrible damage that might potentially have been inflicted upon you (against, it must be said, all the odds.)

I hope you enjoy being on your soapbox over the next couple of years as much as I used to enjoy my Marlboro since at least then there would be some equivalence.

[HazelGroveWolf]

I used to smoke. That said I've not found any reason to demand anything other than a managed retreat from the smoking norm we had 20+ years ago. I do therefore sympathise with those who have not found the will to quit, I can empathise with the reluctance to quit.
I gave up 10 months ago and I find there is no route back to smoking. The communal pressure is no longer there. Twenty five years ago as you couldn't beat 'um joining 'um after a few seemed a good idea. What now for the additives ?

[Goldwolf]

Have you read the document. It states clearly what I have said.
In fact using the 50% rule, not a single stand at molinuex comes under the substaintially enclosed rule and so it is not illegal to smoke in them, it is just club policy.

I'm not so sure. Clearly they are 100% enclosed at the back, not 100% unenclosed at the front (there is a wall and roof overhang) and the sides are partially enclosed. What would be the status of the side walls that are below the seating areas? You would need to do some calculations to be sure.

It's obviously complicated, as the article states. However you choose to ignore this, I think because you just like to be argumentative.

[John]

I'm not so sure. Clearly they are 100% enclosed at the back, not 100% unenclosed at the front (there is a wall and roof overhang) and the sides are partially enclosed. What would be the status of the side walls that are below the seating areas? You would need to do some calculations to be sure.

It's obviously complicated, as the article states. However you choose to ignore this, I think because you just like to be argumentative.
The seating areas are outside and have only a wall at the back and very small side covering. Do you honestly think the outside seating areas have more than 50% enclosures? Or are you being stupid just to be argumentative.

[John]

I can even take my kids in with me without fear of smoke related illness.
If you think a pub is a suitable area to spend time with your children you have more to worry about than being one of the 600 people a year (out of 50M), who die of secondary smoking.

[London Wolves]

They were going to make a cover for the smokers to smoke outside my work. It was like a bus stop cover but it didn't meet the regulations for a smoking area so they can't build it

[Timbli]

Here in Australia we have had no smoking in stadiums for like last 10 years and yeh it doesnt affect attendances at all. For AFL games, Subiaco Oval in particular for West Coast games are sold out every week. And yeh I seen someone smoke once and he was dragged out by stewards and security quick smart.

But yeh in all Australia probably leading with anti-smoking. As of last month no longer allowed to smoke in pubs/hotels/bars.

[Flying Fish]

Here in Australia we have had no smoking in stadiums for like last 10 years and yeh it doesnt affect attendances at all. For AFL games, Subiaco Oval in particular for West Coast games are sold out every week. And yeh I seen someone smoke once and he was dragged out by stewards and security quick smart.

But yeh in all Australia probably leading with anti-smoking. As of last month no longer allowed to smoke in pubs/hotels/bars.

Is it because they gambled all their money away and can't afford to smoke? :rolleyes:

[Breeeeeeen]

Never complained before, but I certainly wont miss have smoke blown back towards me in my seat! Going to the cafe is a lovely experience now too, no longer chewing a gob full of smoke with each bite of food.

[The Vicar]

If you think a pub is a suitable area to spend time with your children you have more to worry about than being one of the 600 people a year (out of 50M), who die of secondary smoking.

So what do I have to worry about John? If I take my children to the pub whilst I have a couple of refreshers, have somethin gto eat, and chat with friends, please elaborate on the impact it will have on them that is greater than the effects of cancer.

[Winelord]

This is hardly news as Wolves announced last season that they'd be going smoke free.
Hopefully they'll ban sanctimonius preaching, too.

[ROVERT47]

I think i would sooner have the occasional waft of smoke, than some fat $$$$$$$ with 6 pints and 4 pork pies inside him, dropping his guts every few minutes.

[Wivey Wolf]

I think i would sooner have the occasional waft of smoke, than some fat $$$$$$$ with 6 pints and 4 pork pies inside him, dropping his guts every few minutes.

Starting countdown to obvious joke....

[Penfold]

A thread full of retards.

How apt you joined it then.

[ROVERT47]

Starting countdown to obvious joke....

I don't think there are many, if any, contributor's to this msg board that sit within close proximity to the Directors Box.

[Wivey Wolf]

I don't think there are many, if any, contributor's to this msg board that sit within close proximity to the Directors Box.

:D You'd be surprised...

[wanderer24]

If you're sat near to a drunk, he may be annoying but he won't affect your heath. Breathing in somebody's else's smoke will damage your health however you measure it.
You should not have to put up with it and thankfully now people don't.

[N1GHTFALL]

If you think a pub is a suitable area to spend time with your children you have more to worry about than being one of the 600 people a year (out of 50M), who die of secondary smoking.

What a completely idiotic statement.

Perhaps if your parents had spent a bit more time in social environments with you when you were younger, you might have grown up with an ability to interact with oher people instead of being argumentative for arguments sake on internet forums.

[paddingtonwolf]

to explain the rule - a stand at a football ground is a bigger and yet fairly similar version achitecturally to a bus shelter - in that it is enclosed at the back and has a roof but is open to the front and sides. A bus shelter without a roof is still technically smoking under the law but one with a roof is classed as "enclosed". Therefore, Wolves are obeying the law rather than creating a policy.

I'm a smoker myself, and I have to say I'm not minding the ban at all. I can certainly go a couple of hours at a match without one.

The only thing that catches me out, and it does seem a touch incongruous, is that the entire footprint of all rail stations including platforms that are entirely outside appears to be covered. Strange.

[Phys Ed Wolf]

If you're sat near to a drunk, he may be annoying but he won't affect your heath. Breathing in somebody's else's smoke will damage your health however you measure it.
You should not have to put up with it and thankfully now people don't.

He would if you asked him to pipe down and he clocks you one. Not saying I agree with John, as I'm glad the smoking ban is in, but I think that drinking in grounds can be just as anti-social. Particularly the people who can't drink responsibly. It's not coinsidence that a&e are getting more business since the increase in hours.

[Goldwolf]

to explain the rule - a stand at a football ground is a bigger and yet fairly similar version achitecturally to a bus shelter - in that it is enclosed at the back and has a roof but is open to the front and sides. A bus shelter without a roof is still technically smoking under the law but one with a roof is classed as "enclosed". Therefore, Wolves are obeying the law rather than creating a policy.

I'm a smoker myself, and I have to say I'm not minding the ban at all. I can certainly go a couple of hours at a match without one.

The only thing that catches me out, and it does seem a touch incongruous, is that the entire footprint of all rail stations including platforms that are entirely outside appears to be covered. Strange.

Thanks paddy, I read the document and tried to make some sense of it, but it was quite compex in regards to Football stadiums. After looking at my picture of Molineux on the wall (:p) I was still unsure.

However, luckily for me John is always right without having to offer any proof or logic other than calling me stupid, so I was OK.

[Axle]

I don't smoke, but I used to when I was younger. I look at people now and I think that it's an incredible waste to smoke, but doesn't anyone miss the warm fug of smoke in a bar? For me, the South Bank won't be the same without clouds of smoke wafting around. I know it's daft, but it somehow added atmosphere.

[Goldwolf]

I don't smoke, but I used to when I was younger. I look at people now and I think that it's an incredible waste to smoke, but doesn't anyone miss the warm fug of smoke in a bar?

Perhaps you have to be an ex-smoker to miss it? I know I don't.

[long ball man]

In the main I don't agree with a censorious approach and if people want to pursue foul disgusting habits at football such as supporting WBA, smothering gravy filled meat pies with tomato ketchup and wearing thick chunky gold jewellery thats up to them in the main but I do draw the line when these habits can be injurious to my health or that of my kids. No smoking is entirely correct

[Kightly07]

600 people dying from second-hand smoke is terrible. If it was one person dying they should get rid of it!

[The Alchemist]

600 people dying from second-hand smoke is terrible. If it was one person dying they should get rid of it!

I agree with the smoking ban but come on! By this logic cars should be banned, and bikes, and sitting in an armchair, and tennis and pretty much everything including hospitals!

[RoffeyWolf]

Because 600 people a year die from secondary smoking.
Driving is more dangerous, should we ban it?

WHO says over five million people died in 2006 from tobacco-related illnesses. The organization also warns that if trends continue, tobacco will kill 10 million people a year by 2020, with 70 percent of the deaths in developing countries.

The WHO estimates that more than 200,000 non-smokers die each year from illnesses caused by breathing smoke from other people's cigarettes.

Who to believe, who to believe, its a tough choice.

[John]

WHO says over five million people died in 2006 from tobacco-related illnesses..
I n Britian?
I doubt our laws will effect the health of people in the rest of the world

[John]

to explain the rule - a stand at a football ground is a bigger and yet fairly similar version achitecturally to a bus shelter - in that it is enclosed at the back and has a roof but is open to the front and sides. A bus shelter without a roof is still technically smoking under the law but one with a roof is classed as "enclosed". Therefore, Wolves are obeying the law rather than creating a policy.

.
For a lawyer you have a poor grasp of this law.
50% of the side structures of any building with a roof have to be solid for it to be classed as substatianly enclosed. The South bank will not have more than 35-40% of its sides enclosed as most of the sides are open/ the metal side panels run only part way down, and the front is completey open.

[RoffeyWolf]

I n Britian?
I doubt our laws will effect the health of people in the rest of the world

You didn't mention Britain.

Even so John, you only mention deaths - do people who get cancer and other smoking related illnesses (who dont die) not count for anything?

[paddingtonwolf]

I am not reading the percentages john - I am going on cast iron examples that have been given that compare closest to the South Bank in their shape and amount enclosed. The best example was the bus shelter which has been specifically quoted because with a roof is banned and without isn't.

However, the South Bank building doesn't end at the seats - it goes to the ground and substantially encloses the concourse, bars and toilet areas, as well as the access stairs.

[John]

You didn't mention Britain.
Where else is the law going to apply to?
Quite frankly I've become very worried at how easily people accept things being banned because they don't do them.
Today our Facist government is looking at banning young people from driving, and when they do banning them from carrying passengers.
No evidence was presented that people got ill from second hand smoke in public places, more exposure would occur in the home if they lived with a smoker, it is just a simple answer to ban things.

[John]

I am not reading the percentages john - I am going on cast iron examples that have been given that compare closest to the South Bank in their shape and amount enclosed. The best example was the bus shelter which has been specifically quoted because with a roof is banned and without isn't.

However, the South Bank building doesn't end at the seats - it goes to the ground and substantially encloses the concourse, bars and toilet areas, as well as the access stairs.
With regard to a bus shelter, it's not banned. I have put 3 of them on my site for smoking shelters, they just must be open at 3 sides.
Each area of a building is considered seperatley. If it wasn't you would not be able to have a smoking area with a roof attached to a pub as it becomes part of the main structure.

[Axle]

Where else is the law going to apply to?
Quite frankly I've become very worried at how easily people accept things being banned because they don't do them.
Today our Facist government is looking at banning young people from driving, and when they do banning them from carrying passengers.
No evidence was presented that people got ill from second hand smoke in public places, more exposure would occur in the home if they lived with a smoker, it is just a simple answer to ban things.

Fascist government? That's a bit emo isn't it?!

[paddingtonwolf]

I agree with you here - don't faint

This is all very nanny-state. It started when they got the hunting ban in and God knows where it will end. I personally have no objections to the smoking ban but the REAL irritation is that I can't smoke on the tube (fair enough been that way for 20 years, totally used to it), I now can't smoke at the mainline station on my way home and so can only smoke as I walk from the tube station to Euston. However, there is nowhere at Euston to get rid of my cigarette as there are no bins because some pesky terrorist might put a bomb in one, so I have to use the floor to put the fag out and then can get busted for littering - that's persecution.

[Mostly Wolves]

I think we've all got the wrong end of the (cancer) stick here. I don't think the law about whether or not the Mol is enclosed or otherwise applies. The fact is that it's a workplace, and IIRC from the literature I've read, the ban is to protect those people working there, stewards, programme sellers, police, counterassistants, all of whom are supposed to be protected by the law.

As to whether the stewards will be enforcing it, when the club are liaible to a fine of up to two grand FOR EACH OFFENCE, you can bet Jez and Co. will be on you like the proverbial if you try for a crafty one, and I'm betting they'll be keeping the toilets under surveillance as well (just like being back at school!)

[kidder_wolf_II]

(just like being back at school!)

should fit in well with Johns political views then

[John]

I don't think the law about whether or not the Mol is enclosed or otherwise applies.
Yes, it does.
Open spaces that are substantially enclosed, even though they are public places, including places of work, do not have to be smoke free.
Jez won't face any fine if someone lights up in the seating area, but will if they light up in the concourse, or in a directors box, or in the toilets.
It is a club policy to ban smoking in the outside areas, not the law.

[John]

should fit in well with Johns political views then
Which are?

[The Vicar]

I have put 3 of them on my site for smoking shelters, they just must be open at 3 sides.

Wrong interpretaion of the law. The law refers to in excess of 50%, so because three sides of a shape are open does not mean it is not substantially enclosed. If the smoke can enter an enclosed building, then the shelter would be illegal even if it was itself not substanmtially enclosed.

[John]

Wrong interpretaion of the law. The law refers to in excess of 50%, so because three sides of a shape are open does not mean it is not substantially enclosed. If the smoke can enter an enclosed building, then the shelter would be illegal even if it was itself not substanmtially enclosed.
Incorrect. We placed those shelters with the help of Wolverhampton Council, who enforce the law.
If 3 sides are open, it is not substantially enclosed, it is an open space and therefore exempt from the law.
If smoke can enter a building then it would be incorrectly sited, that is all, not an illegal building.

[kidder_wolf_II]

Which are?

very 6th former based

[The Vicar]

The shelter if incorrewctly sited would be breaking the law. I think that sort of makes it "illegal".

[John]

The shelter if incorrewctly sited would be breaking the law. I think that sort of makes it "illegal".
You would be told to move the shelter though, not dismantle it. The shelter itself is perfectly legal.

[John]

very 6th former based
Never been a sixth former, do they make you all think the same?

[kidder_wolf_II]

Never been a sixth former, do they make you all think the same?

well if you havnt then you do a very good job of acting like you do with your very boring and drawn out views on not being able to smoke in public being "so unfair, i feel like stamping my feet and starting a march around molineux to protest against this violation against my human rights" bla bla bla

[long ball man]

this has turned into a bit of a boring rant...beware of single issue fanatics.

[saturday boy]

this has turned into a bit of a boring rant...beware of single issue fanatics.

i hardly think john can be accused of being a single issue fanatic - I don't think an issue has been raised on here that he has not been fanatical about.

[djackl]

very 6th former based

Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush. :D

John, if it's club policy to ban smoking, why the bloody hell does that pdf file say the complete opposite?



Affected premises will include stadiums and sports grounds (as well as shops, bars, clubs, restaurants and health
centres), to the extent that these are enclosed or substantially enclosed. Errant molineuxmix posters to the contrary.


Anything else is irrelevant - it's an FA sanctioned proposal, not merely club policy.

[RoffeyWolf]

Where else is the law going to apply to?
Quite frankly I've become very worried at how easily people accept things being banned because they don't do them.
Today our Facist government is looking at banning young people from driving, and when they do banning them from carrying passengers.
No evidence was presented that people got ill from second hand smoke in public places, more exposure would occur in the home if they lived with a smoker, it is just a simple answer to ban things.

It was in relation to the deaths, John, not the the law.

No answer on the illnesses?

Maybe no evidence was provided because its so $$$$$$$ing obvious John.

[kidder_wolf_II]

Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush. :D.

sorry there obviously are exceptions :p

[Mutchy]

Yes, it does.
Open spaces that are substantially enclosed, even though they are public places, including places of work, do not have to be smoke free.
Jez won't face any fine if someone lights up in the seating area, but will if they light up in the concourse, or in a directors box, or in the toilets.
It is a club policy to ban smoking in the outside areas, not the law.

Perhaps it just saves any confusion to ban smoking in all areas of the ground?

As far as damage to others goes... my Mum, a non smoker from a non-smoking household, worked in an office with a colleague who smoked heavily, and developed a cough as a result. It has taken three years since retirement for that to finally disappear.

[itsmee]

Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush. :D


I think they all missed that little play on words, all getting far to serious

[Dr Wolfenstein]

What a completely idiotic statement.

Perhaps if your parents had spent a bit more time in social environments with you when you were younger, you might have grown up with an ability to interact with oher people instead of being argumentative for arguments sake on internet forums.

Pubs being the last bastion of reasoned debate? A glass in the face usually removes any last lingering doubts as to the shakey logical position taken up by the proposer & seconder of the opposing argument.

Agreed pubs are social environments but their raison d'etre is trafficking alcohol, not the best atmosphere for young kids & to suggest that the sudden removal of smoke makes them suitable for youngsters is plain wrong. Nor do we hardened drinkers want a bunch of screaming brats & ankle-biters cluttering up the place, hogging the juke-box & generally causing noise-pollution every bit as annoying as fag smoke & its almost unprovable connection to 600 alleged deaths, passive & secondary.

[John]

Maybe no evidence was provided because its so $$$$$$$ing obvious John.
Or because there is none?
How can you prove where someone was exposed to second hand smoke?

[John]

well if you havnt then you do a very good job of acting like you do with your very boring and drawn out views on not being able to smoke in public being "so unfair, i feel like stamping my feet and starting a march around molineux to protest against this violation against my human rights" bla bla bla
I don't smoke.
It's no violation of my rights whether people smoke or not at the molineux.
Doesn't mean I agree with it because it doesn't effect me.

[John]

Anything else is irrelevant - it's an FA sanctioned proposal, not merely club policy.
Try reading the rule on substatially enclosed.
That does not include the seating areas of the molineux. Only the concourse,toilet areas and boxes HAVE to be non smoking. Making any part of your premises that is neither enclosed or substatially enclosed non smoking is the choice of that organization, NOT the law.

[John]

Perhaps it just saves any confusion to ban smoking in all areas of the ground?
Actually it would have been very simple. Where you can't drink, i.e the yellow line beyond which you can't take alcohol, you can smoke as you are then outside.

[Hatch End Wolf]

The problem with smoke is that it doesn't / can't obey yellow lines. A drinker inside the lines has no effect on anyone else, but smoke travels. That's why smoking / non-smoking areas in restaurants, cafes, pubs, etc never worked.

Unfortunately smokers have ruined it for themselves. I've sat in the non-smoking section of the Billy Quiet for years, where you would think smokers wouldn't go, but nearly every game some addict ( or addicts ) lights up on the concourse or in the toilets and are always amazed when it's noticed!

I have no objection to smokers providing I don't have to smoke as well.

[Penfold]

John,

There are many, many examples of the Nanny State in action. The smoking ban, however, is one that has pretty much universal support. Is it a coincidence then that this is the sole topic of this nature you choose to take up on here?

Do you honestly believe that banning smoking in the stands is a bad thing or do you just love the attention brought about by people disagreeing with you? Genuine question.

The minor inconvenience of not having a fag for a couple of hours is nothing compared to the lack of choice of breathing in someone else's smoke if they are in the seat next to you.

[RoffeyWolf]

How can you prove where someone was exposed to second hand smoke?

I'd say, that if I went into a pub for say three hours (when smoking was allowed) that there was 99% chance I breathed in second hand smoke.

Would you disagree?

[The Vicar]

Actually it would have been very simple. Where you can't drink, i.e the yellow line beyond which you can't take alcohol, you can smoke as you are then outside.

I think you will find you are wrong on two counts. You are not allowed to smoke in an open space when there is a risk of the smoke entering an enclosed space i.e. outside the yellow lines at the Molineux.

The alcohol at football groounds law refers to being able to see the pitch whether it be inside or not.

[John]

I think you will find you are wrong on two counts. You are not allowed to smoke in an open space when there is a risk of the smoke entering an enclosed space i.e. outside the yellow lines at the Molineux.
.
The risk must be substantial.

[John]

The alcohol at football groounds law refers to being able to see the pitch whether it be inside or not.
I know.

[John]

I'd say, that if I went into a pub for say three hours (when smoking was allowed) that there was 99% chance I breathed in second hand smoke.

Would you disagree?
Prove it was that exposure that made the people who are ill, ill. It can't be done because no figures exsist to see if they grew up in a smoking house, lived in a smoking house or were ex-smokers.
Nobody knows where the damage was done, so nobody will know for 10-15 years if this move has any effect on the nations health.

[John]

John,

There are many, many examples of the Nanny State in action. The smoking ban, however, is one that has pretty much universal support. Is it a coincidence then that this is the sole topic of this nature you choose to take up on here?

Do you honestly believe that banning smoking in the stands is a bad thing or do you just love the attention brought about by people disagreeing with you? Genuine question.

The minor inconvenience of not having a fag for a couple of hours is nothing compared to the lack of choice of breathing in someone else's smoke if they are in the seat next to you.
I honestly believe it is a bad thing, and I don't smoke.
Fox hunting being banned had pretty universal support and I didn't support this either. I make up my own mind and don't care if lots of people agree with me.
I didn't bring up this topic, I just responded to it.
The choice to sit in the no smoking area was always there, and judging by how empty it was, most people weren't really THAT bothered.

[Penfold]

Fair enough then ;)

[John]

Fair enough then ;)
I'd have supported the club banning smoking in the Billy Wright and the North bank and allowing it in the Steve Bull and South bank, therefore allowing people choice. I'd have approved of pubs being allowed to have a smoking room and private clubs being allowed to vote on whether to ban smoking or not. I don't believe in outright bans and governments imposing draconian rules on us.

[wanderer24]

Why should family's be unable to take their children for a meal in a restaurant John? The reality of 99% of Pubs/Restaurants before the ban is that you had to breath in other people's smoke, not just the fact it's disgusting but it causes many potential medical problems not least stomach cancer. Before you say you can't prove it, stomach cancer can be caused from smoke getting onto food.
I didn't used to have a CHOICE whether to go to a non-smoking restaurant because they didn't exist for families. Non-smoking areas was a ridiculous notion because wherever you sat, the smoke would travel.
I, like every other family and non-smoker can go into a pub or restaurant and EAT in safety.
I am an ex-smoker and smoke doesn't bother me but i shouldn't have to put up with it while eating. My wife and son should not have to breath in other people's smoke and thankfully our options for social occasions are increased.
I also love a fag while enjoying a cider and have no issue with standing outside to do so. I agree there should be a choice but if landlords have a choice to be smoking or non-smoking then they would just go back to the old system and there is no choice.

[kidder_wolf_II]

I'd have supported the club banning smoking in the Billy Wright and the North bank and allowing it in the Steve Bull and South bank, therefore allowing people choice.

and who would steward those stands, police them, serve the food and drink?

As stated a number of times its now illegal to smoke at work as employees DONT have a choice where they work.

[Hatch End Wolf]

As I said before, smokers have NOT obeyed the previous rules in a relatively small area of the Billy Quiet and have affected a large number of people who didn't want to smoke.

If smokers could be entirely separated from non-smokers that would be ok by me, but it just isn't possible to have smoking / non-smoking areas of the same building ie. pubs, restaurants, football stands, etc. Smoke obeys no boundaries and anyway under modern law employees are at liberty to sue their employers if they get smoking related diseases. Neither Wolves or any other employer wants to take that chance.

[John]

and who would steward those stands, police them, serve the food and drink?

As stated a number of times its now illegal to smoke at work as employees DONT have a choice where they work.
Read the law if your going to comment on it. It is NOT illegal to smoke at work if you work outside, or under cover and that area is not substantially enclosed (ie more than 50% of the perimeter is made up of walls).
The police and stewards dealing with those in the queues will still have to breathe in peoples smoke becayuse you are outside the ground.
In the seating areas the club could have allowed smoking in two stands and complied with the law and catered for all thier cutomers.

[John]

Why should family's be unable to take their children for a meal in a restaurant John? .
Why would a law of choice made that any different?
Some restaurants would have been non smoking, some would have been all smoking.
Those who own them should be free to choose.
Why should a private members club not be allowed to vote on whether to allow smoking?

[John]

As I said before, smokers have NOT obeyed the previous rules in a relatively small area of the Billy Quiet and have affected a large number of people who didn't want to smoke.
Did you ever take that up with the fat $$$$ Moxey?

If smokers could be entirely separated from non-smokers that would be ok by me, but it just isn't possible to have smoking / non-smoking areas of the same building ie. pubs, restaurants, football stands, etc.
You've been in some odd pubs.
Many have totally seperate rooms. Family rooms, snugs etc. Why would a non smoker go into the smoking room?

[Atlas 1951]

You've been in some odd pubs.
Many have totally seperate rooms. Family rooms, snugs etc. Why would a non smoker go into the smoking room?

To collect glasses?

[wanderer24]

Why would a law of choice made that any different?
Some restaurants would have been non smoking, some would have been all smoking.
Those who own them should be free to choose.
Why should a private members club not be allowed to vote on whether to allow smoking?

They had the choice of banning smoking in the past, they didn't have to offer smoking areas, they did it to try and gain more business.
The REALITY John, which you are failing to accept, is given the choice there would be very few restaurants who would be non-smoking if the law didn't apply.
I don't know what family restaurants you've been to John, but the one's i've been to had smoking areas varying in distance from my table but i could smell the smoke from every one.
I don't hold issue with private members clubs voting on whether to be smoking/non smoking, i agree with their right to choose. Applying law over buildings based on their use is very impracticle and the only law that would give bias to the ideal of a non-smoking society is an outright ban.

[John]

I don't hold issue with private members clubs voting on whether to be smoking/non smoking, i agree with their right to choose.
They are not allowed to choose. The law bars them.

[John]

To collect glasses?
Entirely down to the law to allow non smoking employees to refuse to enter the smoking room.
Railway laws allow me to refuse to carry out any work I deem to be unsafe without any comeback against me.
Therefore a precedent already exsisted.

[OldWolvesfart]

I think that alcohol is far more dangerous than smoking and causes far more deaths. Being in secondary contact with an alcoholic is far more likely to lead to death than the so called secondary smoking risk.
So lets close all pubs and off licences and really put a strain on the governments income. Just imagine no tax from tobacco or alcohol that would mean no money for the NHS and far more.

[John]

I think that alcohol is far more dangerous than smoking and causes far more deaths..
What will happen to the nations alcohol consumption now many people are not put off hanging round in pubs due to smoke?
Will the 600 people dying in Britain each year be replaced by a 1000 extra people dying of liver failure?

[Ogerp]

Exactly how is this a suprise, what with the ground being an enclosed space?!?! If people take smoking more seriously than their football, then stuff 'em.....

Enclosed?
Surely 50% is not enclosed so smoking could still be allowed. I'm sure this is more an internal ruling by our non smoking owner (in waiting)

[Ogerp]

As an side, many of the pubs around my way are now empty, inside.

Packed outside in the Smoking area....infact it's getting that crowded out there the Smokers are trying to get the non smokers banned.:D

Smoking was and always will be part of a social thing. But of course the goody doers never had a social life and so never thought of that.

[big-blue-wolf]

I'm a smoker myself, and I have to say I'm not minding the ban at all. I can certainly go a couple of hours at a match without one.

Out of all the rubbish posted in this thread, this comment seems to me to be the most sensible thing posted.

If smokers can't manage without a cigarette for a couple of hours then things must be bad for them.

I don't smoke and never have but I'm glad the ban is in place at Molineux, it will be much better for my son when he comes to games with me not to have to breathe in cigarette smoke.

Now, I wonder if the government will implement a swearing ban? ;)

[John]

If smokers can't manage without a cigarette for a couple of hours then things must be bad for them.

I don't smoke and never have
Does your head ever come from out of your arse?
Smokers smoke to relieve stress, nothing is more stressful than watching football if your team is hovering around promotion.
I bet there are lots of things you've never done, your life would make a great film.

[big-blue-wolf]

John, you don't half talk some rubbish.

Go and have a cigarette to relieve your stress levels, but make sure its not in a public building.

[John]

John, you don't half talk some rubbish.

Go and have a cigarette to relieve your stress levels, but make sure its not in a public building.
Which part of "I don't smoke" isn't sinking in?
I used to, I gave up 5 years ago.
However, just because I don't anymore doesn't mean I'd support a badly thought out and flawed piece of legislation.

[big-blue-wolf]

It was a joke.

Seeing as you were abusive in your first reply to me I decided to inject some humour but you obviously didn't get it.

[Goldwolf]

Will the 600 people dying in Britain each year be replaced by a 1000 extra people dying of liver failure?

Secondary liver failure caused by sitting near people who were drinking?

Alternatively, maybe the ban will cause more people to give up smoking and reduce the many tens of thousands of deaths that can be directly attributed to smoking each year?

[John]

Secondary liver failure caused by sitting near people who were drinking?
No, all the tarts driven out of the pub by "dangerous" smoke, may now give themselves liver failure with the extra 2 halves of shandy they will now have.

[Goldwolf]

No, all the tarts driven out of the pub by "dangerous" smoke, may now give themselves liver failure with the extra 2 halves of shandy they will now have.

I understood what you were getting at. But you were comparing the drop in deaths from secondary smoking to an increase in deaths by primary drinking, without factoring in the potential drop in primary smoking deaths too due to the fact it's becoming more hassle than it's worth to carry on. :rolleyes:

[John]

due to the fact it's becoming more hassle than it's worth to carry on.
With outdoor areas increasing in comfort, I'm not sure that will be an effective deterent.
£10 a pack would be I imagine.

[Dr Wolfenstein]

With outdoor areas increasing in comfort, I'm not sure that will be an effective deterent.
£10 a pack would be I imagine.

Not to my wife, sadly.

I've not smoked for God knows how many years but all the holier-than-thou mealy-mouthed pap on this thread is tempting me to start again.

"I've always wanted to be a drunkard/Wolves supporter/go for a walk/eat out (delete as applicable), but was always put off by the large swathes of smoke polluting the atmosphere."

Just look out for the real carcinogenic pollution that the majority happily puff out of their cars as they wait in traffic half the day on the road to nowhere-engines running, time running out.

[Hatch End Wolf]

Sorry Doc, but that analogy doesn't hold up. We all breath in vehicle fumes and that may have an effect on us, but smokers die of cancers, heart and circulation diseases to a greater extent than non-smokers. Therefore, the close proximity to tobacco smoke is an extra health hazard suffered by smokers and as a by-product to anyone else nearby ( in an enclosed space ).

Anyway, it's great now to go into a pub or restaurant and not come out stinking of smoke.

[Dr Wolfenstein]

We all breath in vehicle fumes and that may have an effect on us,

Exactly, & I know which I consider to be the greatest threat to the survival of humanity as opposed to your enjoyment of a meal...And of course, if you chose to eat at a restaurant/cafe with tables outside, you might find the car fumes a greater nuisance & come away smelling of petrol, diesel fumes instead of fag smoke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/905016.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-01.htm

[Wivey Wolf]

Does your head ever come from out of your arse?
Smokers smoke to relieve stress, nothing is more stressful than watching football if your team is hovering around promotion.
I bet there are lots of things you've never done, your life would make a great film.

Not trying to cause any argument, but I don't believe this is true.

In addition, in this case, the supporter is voluntarily submitting themselves to that stress - ergo, if you don't submit yourself to a stressful situation, you don't need to relieve that stress....

[MK Panther]

Have a smoke at home before coming to the ground then rush home for a ciggy at the end whats the problem.

[The Vicar]

[quote=John;430842]Fox hunting being banned had pretty universal support and I didn't support this either. I make up my own mind /quote]

Really, you do surprise me:rolleyes:

There is a difference between making up your own mind and simply disagreeing with something just because the vast majority of people agree with it.

[John]

Not trying to cause any argument, but I don't believe this is true.
1. Have you ever smoked?
2. Appreciate you are not trying to cause an arguement. (A first for us!)
3. It was the case for me, and many of my friends.
4. I still crave a fag when things get stressful.
5. People shouldn't have to give up going to the game, when the club could have provided an area for smoking and stayed within the law.

[Hatch End Wolf]

I used to work in coal mining. Many of the men I used to work with had go without a smoke for 8 hours or more and they were total addicts.

Smoking is banned on all European flights, which can be up to 5 hours. People survive.

What's the problem with less than 2 hours at a football match?

[Mutchy]

Wouldn't chanting/singing etc be a better way of relieving tension at a match?

[Wivey Wolf]

1. Have you ever smoked?
2. Appreciate you are not trying to cause an arguement. (A first for us!)
3. It was the case for me, and many of my friends.
4. I still crave a fag when things get stressful.
5. People shouldn't have to give up going to the game, when the club could have provided an area for smoking and stayed within the law.

The particular comment I was referring to is "nothing is more stressful than watching football if your team is hovering around promotion". I believe that there are many more things in life that are significantly more stressful - caring for a terminally ill relative; being in a "bad" relationship; pressure of work - to name just three.

At the end of the day, football is only a game, and we all choose to become involved, and often OVER-involved in it. But that is our choice, whereas there are many more things in life that are more stressful and that we don't have the same choice about.

[OldWolvesfart]

The particular comment I was referring to is "nothing is more stressful than watching football if your team is hovering around promotion". I believe that there are many more things in life that are significantly more stressful - caring for a terminally ill relative; being in a "bad" relationship; pressure of work - to name just three.

At the end of the day, football is only a game, and we all choose to become involved, and often OVER-involved in it. But that is our choice, whereas there are many more things in life that are more stressful and that we don't have the same choice about.

Good points but I think what is being discussed here is wider than the ban at Molineux. There didn't appear to be a mass protest against smoking in the ground prior to this or did I miss it.
There is far more stress to be found elsewhere but until secondary smoking appeared as a frightener smokers who smoke for stress relief or whatever were not the social lepers they are being made out to be today.
Remember anyone whos smokes for a number of years has paid heavily in taxes and has contributed far more towards their share of potential NHS benefits than many others.
Many people that smoke have enough pressure and stress in their lives without adding to it, most pubs used to have public bars and lounge bars if you didn't want to smoke, play dominoes,darts or talk to the locals you went to the lounge bar, worked for years.

[UNCLE REMUS]

Good points but I think what is being discussed here is wider than the ban at Molineux. There didn't appear to be a mass protest against smoking in the ground prior to this or did I miss it.
There is far more stress to be found elsewhere but until secondary smoking appeared as a frightener smokers who smoke for stress relief or whatever were not the social lepers they are being made out to be today.
Remember anyone whos smokes for a number of years has paid heavily in taxes and has contributed far more towards their share of potential NHS benefits than many others.
Many people that smoke have enough pressure and stress in their lives without adding to it, most pubs used to have public bars and lounge bars if you didn't want to smoke, play dominoes,darts or talk to the locals you went to the lounge bar, worked for years.

Used to have "Smoke Rooms"

[dr cool]

nothing wrong with a fine cigar....

drc

[UNCLE REMUS]

nothing wrong with a fine cigar....

drc

I usually smoke in bed, when I haven't got the Vasalene handy.

[RoffeyWolf]

I gave up 2 and a half years ago when it got too expensive and am not one for preaching the dangers of smoking. I had a couple of cigars at a wedding on Saturday (outside) and quite enjoyed them.

The simple FACT is, that smoking IS dangerous to health, whether 1st or 2nd hand, and if tobacco was discovered in the 21st Century, it would be illegal to use.

If it becomes more and more inconvenient to smoke, and weeds out the social smokers (as it becomes more anti-social) at the very least, fewer people will die.

[RoffeyWolf]

And one last thing, drinking sensibly (not that many of us do....) is not a danger to the person drinking or the people around them. Some studies suggest that a glass of red wine can be benficial for example. Abuse of alcohol is the problem.

Can you say the same about smoking?

[John]

. Some studies suggest that a glass of red wine can be benficial for example. Abuse of alcohol is the problem.

Can you say the same about smoking?
Seeing as 50,000 people a year die of lung cancer and 10M people in this country smoke (although at one point it was nearer to 25M people who smoked), it's clear that not all smokers will die as a result of thier smoking. Without any studies on how much those who have got lung cancer smoked a day it's impossible to know if there is a safe limit. As it is a great reducer of stress, which is bad for you, who knows if smoking any amounts is beneficial.
The government is hardly likely to fund studies into the benefits of smoking, and safe levels to do so.

[John]

The particular comment I was referring to is "nothing is more stressful than watching football if your team is hovering around promotion". I believe that there are many more things in life that are significantly more stressful - caring for a terminally ill relative; being in a "bad" relationship; pressure of work - to name just three.
Personally, it sounds like you don't get too involved with your football.
I have been through a divorce, been to war twice, been in two bad car crashes and been made redundant. None of these raised my stress levels anything like watching the Wolves defend a one nil lead against Man utd in the premiership.

[RoffeyWolf]

Seeing as 50,000 people a year die of lung cancer and 10M people in this country smoke (although at one point it was nearer to 25M people who smoked), it's clear that not all smokers will die as a result of thier smoking. Without any studies on how much those who have got lung cancer smoked a day it's impossible to know if there is a safe limit. As it is a great reducer of stress, which is bad for you, who knows if smoking any amounts is beneficial.
The government is hardly likely to fund studies into the benefits of smoking, and safe levels to do so.

You keep mentioning deaths rather than illnesses.

Beneficial smoking - now I know you are on a wind-up.

[John]

Beneficial smoking - now I know you are on a wind-up.
Like you and beneficial drinking?

[Wivey Wolf]

Personally, it sounds like you don't get too involved with your football.
I have been through a divorce, been to war twice, been in two bad car crashes and been made redundant. None of these raised my stress levels anything like watching the Wolves defend a one nil lead against Man utd in the premiership.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one then - having almost been through a marriage breakup, a serious car crash )six hours in theatre), two redundancies and nursing a family member through a terminal illness, I can safely say that a match of football is nowhere near as stressful. Even those matches where I have almost blacked out from almost "forgetting to breathe" when hurling abuse at the referee or have watched us throw away/recover a two goal lead/deficit don't come close.

[wanderer24]

Two reason's why were the unhealthiest nation in Europe.

[wanderer24]

What is this? You show me your scars and i'll show you mine.

[Wivey Wolf]

What is this? You show me your scars and i'll show you mine.

Don't bother, I'll win...

[RoffeyWolf]

Like you and beneficial drinking?

Do a search on the internet John. Here is one of many things you will find:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3398891.stm

[John]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one then .
That is perfectly fair enough. My opening statement was no attempt at a slur either, some people laugh off defeat, some sulk for days. Neither is right or wrong.

[John]

Do a search on the internet John. Here is one of many things you will find:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3398891.stm
All the health benefits of wine, without the alcohol. Says it all.

[jonesey85]

Whether it is written in statutory law or not i applaud the management for enforcing this rule.

If for instance a loophole in the law allowed us to smoke within football grounds would that still make it right? No, the principal still stands the same as it would in a pub; just because it is "outside" does not mean we get any less smoke in our faces. And from a non- smokers perspective, it has given me chest infections, and it has made me choke during games.

Smokers that stop coming to these games are welcome to stay away, because a healthy atmosphere now hopefully means that more children will be attending games with their parents, particularly at away matches where no non- smoking section is available, something that stopped me being allowed to go to games at around the age of 8.

[Atlas 1951]

I'm a reformed smoker who lives in a country where there is no ban. I have to say that it is a pain in the a**e to drink without smoking when there is smoke going everywhere and half a dozen people from whom I can freely cadge the moment I give in to temptation. People might criticize my lack of resolve but if I am actively engaged in imbibing a narcotic which lowers inhibitions, the odds are stacked against me, aren't they?

People talk (I think it was John) about the no-smoke areas of pubs or the old lounge / snug division, but in those days a non-smoker entering the pub with his smoking mate would be seen as anti-social if he refused to go into the smoking area. The lounge would be full of couples or even families. I don't think it is a bad thing that the burden has been placed more on the smoker, and I don't really see a way to do that other than by law.

John, one of the reasons you can refuse to perform work in a smoking area is that you have a strong union. Bar staff commonly work below minimum wage on the pretext of a "trial period" which lasts indefinitely, and I can't see them faring well if they start refusing tasks.

Having been a smoker I do sympathise with those who perceive their civil liberties as being infringed. But I'm sick of hearing the phrase "nanny state" which is bandied about; this is a neoliberal propaganda slogan, not a point of view. States exist to look after their citizens; if they don't do that they're just mafias with flags.

[Rightside Boy]

At the end of the day if smokers could smell how repulsive their breath,clothes,hair,homes,cars etc etc smelt they would quit tomorrow. Trouble is they cant. Dirty so and so's.

Had to edit it, obviously Mutchy is a smoker. Dirty, you know the rest mate.

[Mutchy]

Had to edit it, obviously Mutchy is a smoker.

Obviously...:rolleyes:
Never tried smoking, and never wanted to.

[John]

Never tried smoking.
You really shouldn't comment on it then.
In it's place it's great, as is drinking and sex.
Combining all three in the correct order has lead to some of my best nights ever!
Combing all three in the wrong order has led to some memerable nights. All for the wrong reasons though.

[Mutchy]

I wasn't aware that I had commented on the pleasure it involves for a smoker?

[Hatch End Wolf]

I'm a non-smoker who tried smoking quite a few times when I was a teenager. I'm one of the lucky ones because it had no effect on me whatsoever and as I was a big lad I didn't need to smoke to look older.

Never mind the health effects I must have saved a fortune over the years by not smoking. It's meant I could afford a big house in the leafy suburbs, a nice new car and a Wolves season ticket!

[John]

Never mind the health effects I must have saved a fortune over the years by not smoking. It's meant I could afford a big house in the leafy suburbs, a nice new car and a Wolves season ticket!
Should have spent it on booze and coke. You'll never get your youth back.

[Wivey Wolf]

Should have spent it on booze and coke. You'll never get your youth back.

Your dental bills must be enormous... or you're Shane McGowan?

[John]

Your dental bills must be enormous... or you're Shane McGowan?
Why?
Where did I say I used coke?
I spent mine on booze and Embassy.
I was simply making a comment.

[Hatch End Wolf]

Spent plenty of lolly on cold beer and hot women, but since I didn't have to buy fags I still ended up rich. :)

[John]

but since I didn't have to buy fags I still ended up rich. :)
Of course you did.
£1000 a year at most, must have made all the difference in the world.
Perhaps if you hadn't had a drink problem you could have been in a nicer house?

[Bedford Wolf]

Smoking is addictive and so the element of free choice is reduced or removed. I've been unfortunate enough to have to stand by while two people close to me (my girlfriends parents) have been told that they have smoking related cancer, and that if hey don't give up immediately they will be dead within 5 years.

They both tried, but neither could kick the habit. It took poor Rose months do die in agony. Pete died 18 months later at the side of his bed in a pool of his own vomit and blood.

I'm glad smoking has been banned from public places. If it were up to me I'd ban it completely.

[Wivey Wolf]

Why?
Where did I say I used coke?
I spent mine on booze and Embassy.
I was simply making a comment.

Sorry - it was a poor joke based on coke = coca cola, not cocaine.

I already have my coat on...

[Hatch End Wolf]

I've only been saving £1,000 a year John? Have fags gone down in price recently?

Ps. As a non-addictive personality I've managed to enjoy a pint without having "a drink problem". Stupid boy :p

[John]

I've only been saving £1,000 a year John? Have fags gone down in price recently?
When did you buy your house and car? Last week stupid boy?

Ps. As a non-addictive personality I've managed to enjoy a pint without having "a drink problem". Stupid boy :p
You spent plenty of lolly on booze without a drink problem? Either your a mug who buys drinks for everyone else, a $$$$$ in denial, or a liar.

[Dr Wolfenstein]

I've only been saving £1,000 a year John? Have fags gone down in price recently?



Obviously the more you imagine you would have smoked, the more you saved; limited by your total disposable income. If you'd been a 60 a day man, you'd be quids in, but 5 a day & smoking O.P.s, then not so much.

[jonesey85]

I'm a non-smoker who tried smoking quite a few times when I was a teenager. I'm one of the lucky ones because it had no effect on me whatsoever and as I was a big lad I didn't need to smoke to look older.

Never mind the health effects I must have saved a fortune over the years by not smoking. It's meant I could afford a big house in the leafy suburbs, a nice new car and a Wolves season ticket!

The only thing missing from this sentence is "and my **** is also bigger than yours too"

If pathetic "one-upsmanship" is what you need to boost your low self esteem then so be it.

I don't smoke, yet I can still recognise how annoying it must be to hear people saying all the time "look how much better off than you I am", so my advice to you is not to bother, as you will not gain any respect by boasting about your possessions, and rightly so.

I just think you're insecure.