pogofish

The difference is that all smoked in a pub were directly harming others around them.

It is only a minority of drinkers who end up causing violence as a result. So there isn't such a great case for restricting the liberty of drinkers vs smokers where

That remains contentious' date=' at best.

It isn't just drunken violence tho. Alcohol has [b']all sorts of other ways of harming.

Nah, wasps are ok!

Grey squirrels are nasty little buggers tho, get rid of them!

"alcohol is just as bad" was used.

I'd contend that it is considerably worse. What are the UK figures? Somewhere between 300 & 15,000 depending on whose case against passive smoking you choose to believe, compared to a minimum 250,000 secondary sufferers of alcohol.

I'd say that the real problem is being avoided?

Maybe not but it makes it much more likley to kick-off. Anyway, being beaten-up is only one aspect of the possible harm.

As for assessing it, ask thise who look into these things. FWIW, my time working with troubled-kids turned-up many instances where something negative happened that would probably have not if one or other of the parties involved had not been drinking. It may not have been the direct cause (altho it often was!) but very often it was unquestionably the catalyst. As for plain-old neglect, we had more children of alcoholics on our books than any other form of addiction.

Alcohol does not directly make a person more violent -

However' date=' blowing smoke in someone's face is more likely to cause them to develop lung cancer than if you didn't do it.

can anyone provide any positive aspects that smoking in enclosed public spaces provides for other people?[/quote']

See above. The something like 20% of all recorded violent crime (alone!) directly attributable to alcohol would kind of make a mockery of your claim? Never mind the other forms of potential harm it can cause. I don't think that even the most hysterical passive smoking argument came anywhere near that level of risk?

Blowing smoke in someone's face is not the issue, nor is smoking, active or passive, the sole cause of lung cancer. I'm not arguing for a return to choking smoke-holes either. Rather, I'm agenst a fundamentally discriminatory, fucked-up & ill-considered bit of legislation that will do nobody any favours in the long run.

Nonsense.

Any individual has the capacity for violence' date=' regardless of alcohol intake.

It is impossible to contribute to passive smoking if you don't smoke.

The two are simply not comparable.[/quote']

Whilst I'd agree that booze won't change basic nature for most people. Come-on! You can't deny that drinking contributes greatly to impared judgement & plain-old stupidity. Which often results in some form of harm to the drinker or others & the direct influence of alcohol on violent crime, family neglect & a whole load of social problems is pretty well established I'd say.

well you're obviously drinking in the wrong pubs.

i argued with the guy cause i'm sure it's illegal to refuse to give out water but to no avail.

Obviously' date=' except that you don't find that out till they refuse you. As for why they refuse, of the places that gave a reason, [b']none of them gave me any reason to doubt that the culture/status of booze goes far too deep in some people & yes, I'm well aware that there is no financial advantage - most pubs make more off soft drinks & indeed, many are on mixer deals/promotions with the suppliers which mean that they often get soft drinks for next to nothing at all.

Surprisingly, it is not illegal to refuse water but many (but not all) licencing boards have put this requirement it in their standard licence conditions instead. I can't remember if they have here.

Yeah' date=' but the difference is that people being harmed by someone else's alcohol intake are more directly affected by the person being a cunt (ie, picking a fight, driving while pissed, puking on your shoes, etc).

An arsehole is an arsehole, whether pissed or not.[/quote']

Agree about the arseholes but I don't think I've ever had to watch my back over a fag.

Either way, that is usually the direct result of their drinking whilst the whole passive smoking arguement is at best contentious. I'm not stupid enough (or want to get into that particular argument) to claim that it does no harm but even the most pro-believer has to accept that they are having great difficulty quantifying the risk whilst studiously neglecting other contradictory factors like pollution, lifestyle/environment changes & other cancer/heart disease causing agents. Whilst the risk from alcohol is not only much greater than even the worst-case PS scenario but consistantly agreed to be so.

wow...I'd happily leave a pub if they were that fucking awful to a customer!

Yes. I'd normally never darken their door again except under protest or unless the place changed hands.

i actually don't believe that for a second.

Then you would be very wrong.

Admittedly tho, this has not been a problem in the last few years so I'd accept that attitudes are beginning to change. It is however still not that unusual to get a look of surprise/suspicion or a "you driving?" or similar when I ask for a soft drink.

this is a strange argument...

when has anyone who bought a pint forced someone else to drink it?

yeah' date=' alcohol is bad for you, but it's only going to affect you, and no one else (unless you go pick a fight, or spew on someone elses doorstep!)

the original point to "banning smoke in pubs" was that people (bar staff, most importantly) don't have to breathe in the smoke from other people...

[/quote']

Is it?

Even though the direct consumption of alcohol is not entirely relavent here, I can think of plenty of examples of occasions where the pressure to drink/drink to excess can be overly intense - both individually & socially. Remember, I had good reason to quit booze for a long time once & plenty of places/people treated me like an utter freak for doing so & more than a few places flatly refused to serve me or asked me to leave because I'd had the temerity to order a soft drink.

Don't try & deny that even without consuming themselves, a huge number of people suffer from illness/injury/general harm, every year as a direct result of someone else's drinking.

Yes, the legislation was framed from the point of secondary sufferers, not primary consumers & that takes me back to my original point.

most (80+% of the smokers I've spoken to) think it's "fine", but I wait for their reaction in winter.

I agree that most smokers were more than willing to accept greater restrictions & a solution that offered much greater choice for non-smokers but the political will was for something else entirely.

Last time I saw Aberfeldy, I got dumped the same night.

Think I'll give this one a miss!

No but what you do after drinking that 10 pints might have very serious consequences for me - It makes no difference what we do to ourselves but as drinkers, we are several orders of magnitude more likley to injure/damage someone else than any smoker.

Ahh...Ari-Up's hair...

Don't you mean her wig?

Wiggy & unwigged photos here:

http://www.newwavephotos.com/AriUp.htm

Eastern Airways fly from Aberdeen to Bristol or Southampton. Pretty cheaply. A train after that would be a less daunting prospect.

and alcohol is not a life threating chemical do you know you can get cancer liver kidney and other diseases from drinking think on that

Exactly!

From the point of view taken by the folk who framed this leglislation' date=' even the worst case (unproven) scenario for harm from smoking [b']pales into complete & utter insignificance compared alcohol.

Dont know if anyone has noticed but the Tunnels are situated in a .....tunnel....!!! it has a roof and walls and therefore when there is no wind the smoke lingers' date=' as a lifelong non smoker I[/quote']

And it dosen't have a ventilation system more than capable of keeping it cool & smoke free? That would be a surprising oversight considering that the planners here have insisted on just such kit being installed in new licenced places for the last 20-odd years.

Of course, FTM, there is no obligation to actually use it & IMO, far too many licencees here subscribed to the "hot, smoky & sweaty, sells more drink" school of thought & judging by the stink in some pubs where I know they have systems capable of handling it, they still do!

how long does it take to get there?

and is there anyway to get there via public transport?

A couple of hours on the train/bus to Inverness then either a £10 taxi to the festival itself or the Beauly service bus to the Kiltarlity road-end then @20-30 mins walk after that. For some reason last year, direct buses to the festival from Inverness were few & far between. A couple went out on the Friday & back on Sunday AM but only one each way on the Saturday. However, a more regular minibus ran from Muir of Ord for some reason. It also has a station, change at Inverness. Hopefully things will be better this year as the numbers are going up by @ a third.

The site was also emminently cyclable from Inverness as well.

i now have hilarious/quite disturbing mental images of how taking a piss in the street could possibly be misconstrued as sexual assault.

Unfortunately it can. IIRC, it has quite a bit to do with who sees you piss. If there are kids/underage about then yes, a court could see it as sexual assault & put you on the register.

is it a decent place for taking kids???? Plenty to keep them amused??? ANyone camped?

Reasonable for kids. If you want a really child-friendly event tho' date=' try the Traquair Fair. [url']http://www.traquair.co.uk/fair.html Sometimes their music line-up is surprisingly good as well.

Camping OK, roughly mown fields, few rocks & the ground was reasonably soft. Plenty of mown hay about to stuff under the tent as well. Comfy! If you want a decent nights sleep tho, specify the quiet area when you book your ticket, that settles down @midnight. Vehicles are parked away from tents, except in the campervan/caravan field. Both are also nearer to the main festival gate - I was in the west field & because of the licence restrictions, you had to walk right round the site to get-in as the gates on my side were either exit only or only open when the bar was active. Not a serious hike but with a stumping hangover & a need for coffee/medication, it was bad enough! Partying was pretty constant in that field the whole time.

What about Pink Floyd's Careful with that axe Eugene? The live version on Ummagumma. Goes on for bloody ages IIRC.

Smokers should just start chewing tobacco instead...

Just ordered a load of extra-strong snuff!

Tell that to the planners!

Fuck' date=' that's pretty severe!o_O[/quote']

Yup, the downside of far too much fun!

Depends. Used to be a mega drinker until it started seriously endangering my health. To the point where I was in the position of maybe only having a few more weeks left to live! Then I had to stop totally for a couple of years to give by system a chance to recover & now, I often don't drink at all for long periods but on a night-out, I may have a drink or two, it really does not matter anymore.

Ocasionally tho, I will have a night off the wagon completely & get utterly plastered. Like on Saturday. Good night but the next day, OW!