40% Spite

In Wales, they asked The Question once again. ‘Should pubs be allowed to have separate, well ventilated smoking rooms?’

This has been dealt with already by Simon Clark, Dick Puddlecote and Christopher Snowdon.

So I won’t bother with the raddled harridans and malevolent harpies of Hatred ‘R’ Us, aka the anti-tobacco mob.

What stood out for me was that around 40% of people don’t think pubs should be allowed to have a separate, well ventilated smoking room. Why not? If you don’t like smoking, don’t go in that room.

The rest of the pub is still smoke free. All of it is smoke free apart from one room but no, that’s not enough for the Spiteful 40%. They must have all of it to themselves.
Really? That many people actually want the entire pub – although part of me suspects that the Spiteful 40% never actually go to pubs. They’re happy to see them closed down.

Which is, of course, the greatest achievement of the smoking ban. Closing down pubs.

Did the pubs hate smokers? Some did. I recall one pub landlord delighting in getting rid of the ‘boring’ smokers – but he could have done that himself any time he liked. He could have made his pub smokefree whenever he wanted. He didn’t because over half his customers were smokers. I wonder if he still has his pub?

Most pubs have done their best to keep our business. There is only one pub in the nearby little village and getting to any other pub means driving. Buses are in short supply out here. With the latest drink-hate from the Scottish Government, there’s no point in driving to a pub because you can’t have a single beer if you’re driving home.

So Local Pub has a captive clientele. If you want a beer in the pub, you go to that one. No choice. They don’t have to cater for anyone, they are the only game in town.

They have a heated and covered smoking area at the back of the pub. Not just a woefully inadequate shelter. A nicely warm and dry space for their smoking customers. Why? Because unlike the vicious goblins of Tobacco Control and their dim lackeys in Government, the pub does not hate smokers.

Just to rub it in, the pub has a real fireplace that’s always in use. Nobody seems to mind that. Burning half a gram of dry leaf terrifies the Spiteful 40% but burn a whole tree in stages throughout the day and they can’t get close enough to it.

They will argue ‘the smoke goes up the chimney’. Yes it does, and the draft up that chimney means all smoke goes up it. Including the smoke from that half gram of burning leaf.

So, 40% of the population are utterly selfish bastards. To make it clearer, they also want smoking banned on beaches. Seriously. Beaches. Those big areas made of sand and washed over by the ocean. A dropped cigarette end is really not going to start a fire there.

As for the smoke, there is five miles of atmosphere overhead and flat ocean as far as the eye can see in front of you. You cannot get a better ventilated area.  You’re at sea level. The atmosphere above is thicker than anywhere else. Yet the Spiteful 40% want all that to themselves. They want to hang their faces over barbecues while banning the guy with a cigarette.

Some people are beyond any form of reasoning. Where’s Natural Selection when you need it?

I blame all those warning labels. They encourage stupid people to survive.


11 thoughts on “40% Spite

  1. I couldn’t agree with you more Leggy. I’m a non-smoker and if I find somewhere is too smoky for me (I very rarely did, even in the free-for-all days) then I’ll go somewhere else. The idea of imposing lifestyle choices on others is simply abhorrent. The problem nowadays, as you regularly point out, is that people can’t think for themselves any more; they only “think” what they are told to think. I despair for our once great nation.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As a non-smoker I agree with you. I never had any real trouble from smokers in my usual local, they usually kept in their own groups and with decent ventilation there was no problem.
    I just wonder how many of those who oppose smoking in pubs actually ever use one.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m a non-smoker, but a serious anti-anti-smoker, and my OH is tee-total so there is no reason to go into a pub at all while there is still a smoking ban.

    Liked by 1 person

    • They had a go at us in 2009.

      Teetotallers are the ‘new pariahs’ – Health Secretary warns on Britain’s drink habit

      “Teetotallers should be celebrated instead of shunned as pariahs, the Health Secretary will say today.
      In a devastating assessment of Britain’s addiction to alcohol, Alan Johnson will dismiss ‘ whimsical’ notions that the Government could succeed in creating a continental ‘cafe culture’.
      It will be seen as a stinging rebuke for ministers who claimed Labour’s controversial 24-hour licensing would do just that.

      Instead, Mr Johnson will demand a wider, fundamental shift in attitudes to alcohol. In a speech to the Royal Society of Arts, he will liken the ‘disdain’ with which nondrinkers are treated to that of non- smokers in previous decades.”

      They do get some peculiar ideas, nobody cared either way.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Okay I sort of try to point out the elephant in the room.

    There are some people who – for reasons of religion – are not officially allowed to partake of alcohol, so they couldn’t care less if all pubs close.


    Then there are outfits that’d feel mighty pissed off if pubs got smoking rooms. Think your nearby coffee shops, restaurants and such, even landlords that don’t want to allow smoking.

    And yes there are ladies who quite simply would never, ever enter a pub – even the “Lounge Bar”.

    Add to that the snowflake generation; those who have never known other than non-smoking places.

    But, as Mr. P pointed out in his post there’s always been a 33 ish percent that have always wanted smoke free and 2% who say they’ve never used pubs, or they just don’t know.

    Herein lies the problem. I’m not an Orthodox Jew, nor a Muslim, yet if asked if I wanted to see a law that bans females from wearing revealing clothing and must always cover their hair when in public and may never be allowed to drive a car or motorcycle, I’m not 100% sure I’d give a toss, no school run mum, fewer daytime cars and no more of those pastry coloured midriffs we see in summer.

    It’s the same with this crap about abortions. They ask any damned fool about it, when a whole bunch of guys kick in to spout their bile. Got sod-all to do with them, nor “the church”.

    Some guys want to spend their entire day reciting “holy” stuff with odd hair and daft hats, that’s fine, just don’t go asking any of them their opinion on smoking rooms in pubs, or private clubs, or tobacconists.

    Nor the “Wee Free’s”.


    • “It’s the same with this crap about abortions. They ask any damned fool about it, when a whole bunch of guys kick in to spout their bile. Got sod-all to do with them, nor “the church”.”

      Abortion is the deliberate, premeditated taking of a human life. If you don’t care about that, don’t start crying when your rights are violated. At least you weren’t killed.


    • Well okay, some people don’t drink for religious or medical or other reasons and so aren’t bothered about pub closures. But it should not automatically follow that they support pub closures, nor that they demand that pubs are entirely smoke free.

      If there was a marzipan shop that was in danger of closing, I wouldn’t be of any help to them. I don’t like marzipan so I’m not going in there. But I would not actively try to get it closed down. I don’t like what they sell, but other people do. I just don’t go there. If they want a room with extra-marzipanny marzipan, fine with me. I’m not going in there anyway. What happens in there has no effect on me.

      If I were to object to the extra-marzipanny marzipan room in a place that holds no interest for me anyway, it could only be based on spite. That room does not affect me at all. I have no logical or sensible reason to object. Not even if second-hand marzipan were a real thing.

      I’d have to belong to one of those religions that says ‘You are free to do exactly as you are told, and anyone who doesn’t do that is evil and must be shunned or killed. Oh and marzipan is made in Satan’s deepest sewers. Never eat that.’

      Unfortunately, such religions exist. One of them is called ASH.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “But, as Mr. P pointed out in his post there’s always been a 33 ish percent that have always wanted smoke free”

      I dunno about that 33%. Before the Antis pulled their secondhand smoke scam, the percentage of people who actually CARED about it was, in my perception and experience, literally less than a tenth of that amount.

      33% (Heck, 66% maybe) of nonsmokers might have wanted close-sitting breakfast counters at diners to be “smoke-free” because having active smokers 12 inches to either side of you while you’re trying to enjoy your morning eggs and toast would be unpleasant for most nonsmokers, but that’s a very different story than pubs. Aside from ONE guy who was just obnoxious, and ONE gal who had an asthma attack one night, I don’t ever recall ANYONE who uttered ANY complaint about smoke in a bar before 1975ish in the wake of the Godber Conference.

      In addition to the effects of the ETS scam and fears, there are other ways that percentage numbers can be jiggled:

      1) Select your population to be surveyed without noting that selection in your results: Carmelite nuns will have different opinions than the gals working in the local brothel.

      2) Be sure to offer question wordings that will bring out and emphasize even the SLIGHTEST preference toward the answer you’re looking for, and then, in reporting the results simply conflate ALL the findings on that side into a single more strongly stated sentiment.

      3) If it still doesn’t work, just poke Tobacco Control for enough money to run the survey a few more times. You’ll often find that the numbers jump wildly up and down for seemingly no reason you can identify. That’s ok… just pick the survey with the results you like.

      There’s a good example of #3 that I was just writing about to someone who had claimed that Trump’s favorability rating had dropped by 3% since getting elected:


      In this 3% example, if I was a Trumpateer, I could stand on a hilltop and proclaim, “Since the beginning of November Donald Trump’s popularity has increased by over 40%!”

      Is that true? Well, if you look at the Huff Post’s “Favorability” figures for Nov. 3rd and March 21st at http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating you’ll find they are, respectively, 31% and 44%.

      That’s a FORTY TWO PERCENT INCREASE in how many Americans have switched their view of Trump to being favorable in the last few months!

      Amazing eh?

      Bet you haven’t seen that in YOUR readings, right? A helluva lot more impressive than a three percent drop!


      Of course if you look at the Huffington graph a bit more closely, you’ll find that by moving my start point by just two days to Nov 5th and by using a second data point they offer for March 21st, the respective figures would be 44% and 36% … showing his Favorability rating HAS dropped … by about TWENTY percent!

      Note that BOTH claims could cite a very “authoritative source” and BOTH claims would be absolutely accurate.

      I think that’s what some might call “alternative facts” and it’s a trick the Antismokers have used for over 30 years: find some small bit of thingamabob out there that supports a claim, and “accurately” present it as true. Actually of course, while it MAY be “accurate” it’s not “true” at all in terms of presenting true information.

      **NEVER** accept anyone’s word on statistics unless you either know and trust them and their history for having done their homework and presenting their best view of the truth, or unless you’ve tracked down the sources and double-checked them and their motivations (e.g. who paid for the development of the stats.)

      MJM, an alternative person…


  5. A piece in my local paper a few weeks ago made my blood boil. An 84 year-old man was in court for being over the new SNP drink-driving limit (he probably ate a chocolate liqueur), but he wouldn’t have been breaking the law anywhere else in the UK. He was banned for a year and fined £400.

    It’s not just spite, but hatred. I expect the miserable plods were happy. Still, he has his ‘free’ bus pass. Unfortunately, so many bus services have been culled that it’s of limited use these days.

    The last bus out of town along the main road in the region departs at 7.30pm when it was previously much later, so people could have a few drinks of an evening.

    A cynic might think that it’s another deliberate sabotaging of the hospitality industry to stop people meeting and to keep them at home being brainwashed by the TV.

    We truly have a psychopathic political class in Scotland. Is it Stockholm syndrome that keeps people voting SNP or are they just eejits?


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.