[Archived] July 1st

[bellamy11]

But AS, surely it works the other way too? If smokers want to smoke then maybe they shouldn't go to a bar where there will be non-smokers. Why would the rights of the smoker be placed above the ones of the non-smoker?

[adopted scouser]

But AS, surely it works the other way too? If smokers want to smoke then maybe they shouldn't go to a bar where there will be non-smokers. Why would the rights of the smoker be placed above the ones of the non-smoker?

That's what I'm saying, if a smoker goes to a non smoking pub he respects the house rules and doesn't light up. Where the same offer of beer and food is available at several different establishments in the same town centre on a friday night, why not have a clear distinction between a site that allows people to smoke and one that doesn't ?

[broadsword]

Yeah, a smoker can remove the opportunity for a non-smoker to go to a pub (assuming that they don't enjoy passive smoking); but a non-smoker can't do the same to a smoker.

In any case, I don't think it's anything to do with the UK government, it's an EU directive (might even actually be legislation) ... all member states have to be smoke free by 2010 or something.

It's not just the UK, but Ireland, France, Scotland ... you'll have to turn it into the EU rant instead.

Being unfortunate enough to live in Germany, where smoking is the national sport, I can't tell you how unpleasant it is to wander into a pub that is full of smoke. In the Winter I had to stand by an open window. There is simply no choice, all pubs are like it.

Like others have said, if it's left to the market, most (all?) pubs will be smoking, as they won't see the financial benefits in going no-smoking.

Most smokers are bloody selfish, whenever I have some food down the pub in Germany, odds are I won't be more than 10 foot away from someone puffing away ...

It really is one of the most anti-social habits going.

[den]

Yeah Bry - and what about the smokers who stub out their fags to eat, then light up when they've eaten? Don't smoke when they're eating, do they! Quite happy to smoke when I'm eating though.

[broadsword]

Considerate isn't it Den?

http://www.epha.org/a/1941

[bellamy11]

That's what I'm saying, if a smoker goes to a non smoking pub he respects the house rules and doesn't light up. Where the same offer of beer and food is available at several different establishments in the same town centre on a friday night, why not have a clear distinction between a site that allows people to smoke and one that doesn't ?

For that to be the case, there needs to be plenty of smoking AND non-smoking pubs in a local area so that people can choose to go to one without being inconvenienced. As Bryan points out, if it was left to choice, every pub would allow smoking.

I personally am in favour of the ban and am enjoying a more pleasant atmosphere in my local. I have smoked on nights out before but it is no huge loss to me. I personally didn't have a big problem at all with places allowing people to smoke but I can see the health benefits of the ban and support these. I don't think it's fair that those who are more concerned about smokers should simply avoid these social venues just because of others who choose to smoke in their faces.

None of this is anything anybody hasn't heard before, but I do find it slightly insulting that non-smokers should "find somewhere else" by disguising it as them having a choice of where to go. Where were these places before the ban?

[Billy Castell]

People who smoke are essentially stupid for starting, and I think it has been downright rude for smokers to adopt the "eff off somewhere else if you don't like it" attitude. I have as much right to go out and not do my lungs in as smokers have to smoke. Where exactly would I go if I didn't fancy smelling like an ashtray? Before the ban, the smoking lobby were effectively saying smokers are allowed to have a social life, whereas those who don't like smoking can p_ss off home and watch Eastenders. A lot of my friends in Bedford smoked, and the pub I went to was a smokers pub, and whilst the company was good, the air was horrid, as was the walls that changed from a nice cream to 'nicotine yellow' within a year. That story has undermined my point somewhat, but there you go. I get more intolerent of this issue as I get older.

I wouldn't ban smoking completely though. I think that would be far too draconian, and if the sale of fags and cigars was banned, criminals will find a way to keep up the supply and get rich.

[blue phil]

Why can't they allow the landlord to decide whether it's a pub that allows smoking or not ?

In the pub I was in the other night (not going to name it ) the landlord did exactly that . He simply locked the door and the punters inside got their ciggies out and started smoking . No complaints from anyone at all . They all acted like adults and had a bit of a laugh about it all .

[colin]

The smoking ban is just one of those things that takes us all forward.

Substitute "letting off stink bombs, farting after a treble boiled-egg vindaloo, & spittoons in pubs" for "smoking" in some of the above posts and you get the answer.

The breathaliser for drunk drivers; the wearing of seat belts; & compulsory crash helmets were also considered by some to be infringement of personal liberties at the time.

Anyone got any problems with these measures now?

The smoking ban is perfectly reasonable.

Don't drag some theoretical drinking alcohol ban into this. It's different, they need to be separated, and considered differentlty.

[thenodrog]

Aside from having no proof that exhaust fumes harm humans, never mind cause cancer,

Can't really argue with what LeChuck has put there.

I can. Sitting in a car with a hosepipe to the exhaust is still one of the more 'popular' ways to commit suicide. Exhaust fumes must be dangerous when they exceed certain levels of %age concentration.

Funny how we are blithely willing to risk the dangers of tobacco, irradiated foodstuffs, cannabis, tanning beds, internal combustion engines, alcohol, mobile phones and microwaves yet are so wary of straying past innocuous things like sell-by dates, dairy products and eating meat. How is that?

[LeChuck]

I can. Sitting in a car with a hosepipe to the exhaust is still one of the more 'popular' ways to commit suicide. Exhaust fumes must be dangerous when they exceed certain levels of %age concentration.

You're comparing the volume of a car to that of an entire atmosphere? You can kill yourself with nutmeg if you try hard enough. This topic is getting a touch pedantic, but I shall rephrase my point anyway:

Aside from having no proof that exhaust fumes in the atmosphere harm humans, never mind cause cancer,

Quickly about your second point, people worry about trivial things like sell by dates because they don't want to become ill. The other things cause people to fear for their lives. Also...it's still missing the point. Tanning bed, junk food, alcohol...they all only effect the body of the person deciding to use it. Having said that, I do think you have a point in general about what people are and aren't frightened of being a bit ridiculous.

[American]

For that to be the case, there needs to be plenty of smoking AND non-smoking pubs in a local area so that people can choose to go to one without being inconvenienced. As Bryan points out, if it was left to choice, every pub would allow smoking.

I personally am in favour of the ban and am enjoying a more pleasant atmosphere in my local. I have smoked on nights out before but it is no huge loss to me. I personally didn't have a big problem at all with places allowing people to smoke but I can see the health benefits of the ban and support these. I don't think it's fair that those who are more concerned about smokers should simply avoid these social venues just because of others who choose to smoke in their faces.

None of this is anything anybody hasn't heard before, but I do find it slightly insulting that non-smokers should "find somewhere else" by disguising it as them having a choice of where to go. Where were these places before the ban?

If it is such a great thing that the majority of the public wants, then why wouldn't a non-smoking pub make a mint (before the ban)? You can't say that pubs will not make money being non-smoking, then defend the ban by saying most people are in agreement.

Privately owned businesses, they are. It would be like the government saying what you can and can't do in your home.

[thenodrog]

You're comparing the volume of a car to that of an entire atmosphere? You can kill yourself with nutmeg if you try hard enough. This topic is getting a touch pedantic, but I shall rephrase my point anyway:

Aside from having no proof that exhaust fumes in the atmosphere harm humans, never mind cause cancer,

I'm sure many studies have been done and equally as many suppressed by the motor and oil industries. Consider one car travelling across Outer Mongolia v a car running in a closed garage? At what point does the latter become safe? Is the curve linear? How about the welfare of staff in underground car parks? What about workers working in areas of high CO2 concentration eg mway repairs? Lead was taken out of petrol, asbestos out of car parts, catalytic convertors and diesel particle filters are now on most cars but why and after how long had it been in? Why is childhood asthma on the increase and especially in built up areas? Why is picking blackberry's along the side of main roads considered dangerous? Etc etc with many other ailments and allergies.

Research and statistics unravels medical mysteries all the time asbestos / microwaves / sunbathing / tobacco / overhead power cables / electric blankets etc with cancer even some plastics are now considered dangerous. All these were considered perfectly safe a few decades ago so whose to say what will be made public in the future?

Am I pedantic here LeChuck or are you being overly dismissive?

btw the economy will have to get by without consuming fossil fuels one day wont it?

[bellamy11]

If it is such a great thing that the majority of the public wants, then why wouldn't a non-smoking pub make a mint (before the ban)? You can't say that pubs will not make money being non-smoking, then defend the ban by saying most people are in agreement.

Privately owned businesses, they are. It would be like the government saying what you can and can't do in your home.

I'd say more people don't smoke than do (I don't have the stats, what do other people think?). If non-smokers wanted to go to a pub then they'd have to be prepared to be in a smoky atmosphere, rightly or wrongly. A non-smoker is going to be far more likely to compromise and go in a smoking pub than a smoker is to go somewhere non-smoking. This is especially the case if the non-smoker has friends who smoke. I know for a fact that if there were six of us going to a pub and one smoked then we'd go to the one where he could do that. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer to be in a non-smoking atmosphere because I would, but I'd rather not cut off a friend in that situation.

If we look at Phil's example of a little "lock in", he said that everybody had a giggle and lit up. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if there was a person there who objected they would have raised their voice, made it known and everybody would nod and put out their fags? Never in this world.

What it my comment boils down to is the fact that I think 99% of the non-smoking population are prepared to go into pubs/clubs etc where there is smoke because it is accepted and it was the norm. Business wouldn't go down from lung-friendly stay-aways. That doesn't mean that these people wouldn't prefer to be in a non-smoking environment.

Personally, could I live with being in a smoky pub? Absolutely - after all, it's what I have been doing upto this point in my life. Do I prefer it being non-smoking? Yes I do.

[LeChuck]

Am I pedantic here LeChuck or are you being overly dismissive?

I'm not saying it's entirely safe, but there was nothing concrete in what you posted. A few "I'm sure"s and a bit of speculation. It's different to smoking anyway. Anyone who owns a car, a motorbike or uses a bus contributes to the problem. That's going to be almost 100% of the population. See my figure below for why that is completely different to smoking.

I'm sticking by what I said about you being a bit pendantic theno, because I don't for one minute you've advocating banning cars etc.

I'd say more people don't smoke than do (I don't have the stats, what do other people think?).

All figures always point to around 25% of the population smoking.

[blue phil]

The smoking ban is just one of those things that takes us all forward.

Substitute "letting off stink bombs, farting after a treble boiled-egg vindaloo, & spittoons in pubs" for "smoking" in some of the above posts and you get the answer.

The breathaliser for drunk drivers; the wearing of seat belts; & compulsory crash helmets were also considered by some to be infringement of personal liberties at the time.

Anyone got any problems with these measures now?

The smoking ban is perfectly reasonable.

Don't drag some theoretical drinking alcohol ban into this. It's different, they need to be separated, and considered differentlty.

Spare us the sermon , Colin . It just doesn't have much credibility coming from an (ex) heroin user......

[den]

Spare us the sermon , Colin . It just doesn't have much credibility coming from an (ex) heroin user......

Can't you be nice once in a while BP. Colin's got every right to give an opinion hasn't he.

[blue phil]

Of course he has , and I welcome his contribution .........but I have the right to point out that he's being a tadge self righteous in this instance .

Anyway , I'm sure he can fight his own battles , Den .

Or has he already enlisted your help ?

[den]

Of course he has , and I welcome his contribution .........but I have the right to point out that he's being a tadge self righteous in this instance .

Anyway , I'm sure he can fight his own battles , Den .

Or has he already enlisted your help ?

You will never know.

[ewoodblue]

Like killing other people Ben?

So.you are calling smokers murderers now, are you.

So,den.....why is it legal to still buy cigarettes.

At least there is some fairness, stopping idiots from using mobile s in cars.Why should peoples lives be endangered by these idiots

[den]

So.you are calling smokers murderers now, are you.

So,den.....why is it legal to still buy cigarettes.

At least there is some fairness, stopping idiots from using mobile s in cars.Why should peoples lives be endangered by these idiots

Don't be silly, but you know and everyone knows that people have died as a result of other peoples smoke.

Yes, people shouldn't use mobiles in cars and there is an argument that drivers shouldn't smoke while driving.

[colin]

Spare us the sermon , Colin . It just doesn't have much credibility coming from an (ex) heroin user......

Pip,

I took some heroin about 20 years ago .

I'm not sure why it bothers you in 2007, & why on earth you think it is relevant to a debate on smoking is beyond me.

You go and justify your comments if you want. I don't suppose you will. You never do..

Colin

[thenodrog]

Pip,

I took some heroin about 20 years ago .

One question that I always think is relevent in this situation Colin. Why did you?

[thenodrog]

http://news.aol.co.uk/tories-call-for-extr...707230909990003

What a bloody sample politicians are today? Targetting the soft underbelly of middle England is reaching epidemic proportions. Just recently we had a proposal that speeding fines be raised by £15 to pay for victims of domestic violence (God only knows on what grounds) and now we have this hare-brained suggestion that for some reason people who buy alcohol should pay for treatment for drug abuse.

Now before someone bangs on about it I do know alcohol IS a drug and possibly one of the worst but if there was ever a case for legalising drugs this is it. Let the druggies pay their own levy.

[Alan75]

Heck Im starting to agree with theno.

Law abiding working / middleclass people are the soft target. More and more we are being persecuted for the benifit of the non law abiding classes.

My beer money is being used for the benifit of those who cant control their habits.

My car insurance is increased to cover those who dont pay.

Police / local authorities wont impound untaxed vehicles driven by itinerants.

Whilst I sympathise with the people affected by the floods, I was really annoyed that my tax is being used to subsidise those that havent bothered to take out building and contents insurance.

I have charities that I subscribe to so why should I then be asked to give money to people who have gambling not taking out insurance.

oh I need to lie down.