PDA

View Full Version : Cabinet agrees England smoke ban


Blacksheep
27th Oct 2005, 03:22
Good news for non-smokers, but is this going too far?

Should there for example be an option for "Smokers" bars and restaurants and "No-Smoking" bars and restaurants? People could then choose which they wished to patronise and bar staff could choose where they preferred to work.

Singapore is very anti-smoking and Changi Airport used to have a tiny smokers room that was always packed with desperate smokers. They now have a pleasant "Smokers Bar" that serves liquor and snacks to smokers - its the most heavily patronised outlet in the airport. And why not indeed?

scatboy3
27th Oct 2005, 03:24
............and the smokers airline could do quite well.:ok:

R4+Z
27th Oct 2005, 07:25
We went through this argument here in West Australia. The thing is what about the employees who have to work in these areas?

eal401
27th Oct 2005, 07:40
The thing is, the cabinet has not agreed a total smoking ban! They have agreed a ban in pubs serving food in particular, so places will simply stop serving food to get around it.

However, even pubs that advertise a non-smoking places still provide heated outdoor areas for those who can't struggle through a couple of hours! No much will keep the legalised drug addicts happy though. ;)

TheFlyingSquirrel
27th Oct 2005, 08:42
All smokers should be dropped into a large vat of boiling oil. I would not even venture into a pub, because 2 minutes after being in there, I would smell like an ashtray. Smokers are always selfish and lazy people - **** em and their habit, that's what I say ! ( 2 years off em, in case you may not have noticed ! )

prospector
27th Oct 2005, 09:13
TFS,

Well done, none so pure as the purified, are you sure venturing into the pub and getting immersed in smoke will not bring on that yearning for just one more??

Prospector

419
27th Oct 2005, 09:19
The thing is what about the employees who have to work in these areas?

Exactly. One of the main reasons for the Government imposing the ban, was to protect the health of people who did not want to inhale second hand smoke.
By making this law a two tier system, all they have managed to do, is to imply that bar staff who work in bars that don't serve food, are not as important as people who work in food serving establishments, and it doesn't matter if they suffer.

Blacksheep.
This law has been talked about for years, and most people guessed correctly that it would only be a matter of time before it was implemented. The bar/restaurant owners have had plenty of time to change, but they didn't. Even if they had fitted decent air conditioners and smoke extractors, instead of relying on 6 inch window fans (if you're lucky), to clear the air.

I was in a hotel bar 2 days ago, and there were a group of men having a drink (and smoke) while standing at the bar. There was an ashtray within arms reach of all of them.
Did they use it? Did they fu*k. Whenever one of them finished their cigarette, it was immediately dropped, and ground into the carpet.
What would be the reaction if I had something to eat, and when I had eaten enough, I tipped the remainder of my food onto the floor, and rubbed it into the carpet?

tony draper
27th Oct 2005, 09:51
Nobody more puritanical than a reformed whore as they say.
**** em! says I,jump on smokers but turn a blind eye to the sellers of heroin and other powdery substances than exist on just about every street in our towns ,typical huggy fluffery.
:suspect:

5150
27th Oct 2005, 11:48
As a self-confessed social/drunken smoker, I can only see this as a good thing.

Having recently come back from the USA you can't help but notice how much better a smoke-free bar is.

No matter how trashed I got I still didn't feel the need to sponge a ciggy of some unsuspecting local, nor did my clothes stink of fags the next day.

I'm all for it.

Send Clowns
27th Oct 2005, 12:01
Surely the people who work in those areas have a choice too. I chose to work in pubs for a while; smoke was a known factor in my work. I don't smoke, and like a bar that is not smoky, but I also hate government sticking its oar in and bringing up new legislation. It is especially worrying when people start to use meaningless statistics to justify their bossiness (how many times have you heard about non-smokers being 25% more likely to suffer heart disease if exposed to smoke? It is even being used on a TV advert now. Without mentioning how much smoke this is complete garbage).

Pubs are already less smoky than they used to be, and I know many with smoke-free areas.

The Devil's Advocate
27th Oct 2005, 12:03
Being an Irishman, our smoking ban has been a revolution. The attitudes of most people have changed regarding the ban. The vintners association were furious when it was first devised and fought it all the way to the very end, saying it would badly harm their business, but go into a pub in Ireland and there's still plenty of people in there.

I go to a pub to drink and for the craic, not to be slowly poisoned. I hope they do bring it in here in the uk, now that i'm working here, I hate going to the pubs here and find myself drinking in the beer garden just so I can get some fresh air. And as for restaurants, don't get me going on having to smell smoke when trying to enjoy a nice meal. Bring in a complete ban I say :E

One thing you non smokers will have to put up with though. In a night club, smoke masked a much worse smell...........Body Odour :yuk:

Mariner9
27th Oct 2005, 12:13
Having never smoked, and hating being in the vicinity of smokers, I was strongly in favour of a ban. However I have to say the proposed legislation is utter bolleaux

My personal dislike of smoking does not require legislation, I can simply choose to patronise smoke-free establishments. In my view, the only valid reason for legislation on smoking is safety.

If the Govt consider that smoking in public places is unsafe then they should ban it totally.

If the Govt considers that smoking in public places (whether serving food or not), is safe, then they should not consider banning it anywhere.

Political cop-out in my view. Mr D eloquently describes it as "typical huggy fluffery" - I agree. :mad: :mad:

The SSK
27th Oct 2005, 12:28
My experience is that bar staff are quite likely to be smokers themselves (no, make that *very* likely). So what's wrong with having smoking bars, where those of that persuasion choose to work?

Dare one say it, you could even have a 'smoking licence' that a pub might have to pay one or two grand a year for, all proceeds to cancer research.

R4+Z
27th Oct 2005, 12:40
The smoking bar answer is a cop out as what you are then doing is bringing in discrimination in the workplace as non smokers wouldn't be allowed to work there. In WA it is getting to the point where you aren't even allowed to smoke within so many metres of a doorway to an office building.

eal401
27th Oct 2005, 12:47
There is, however, one slight problem! Whilst smokers are busily coughing up (snigger) huge amounts of cash to fund giving themselves cancer, a large chunk is winging its way into the Treasury. Ban smoking, cut smoking and that dosh has to come from somewhere else!

bear11
27th Oct 2005, 13:03
Too true, DA - another nasty side affect was the rank smells left in bars and nightclubs once the smokey smells disappeared, 'cos now you acould actually smell them. Worse than this again, we then had a bunch of women running around with various assorted cans of cheap air freshener trying to get it to smell "nice", so now the places took on the olefactory equivalent of a hooker's armpit (allegedly). Since then, the pubs actually got their act together and started to practice proper hygiene, and women with air fresheners have been banished.

I never thought they'd do it here and it has made a huge difference, maybe even worth standing outside in a howling gale and pissing rain for a sneaky one. It has, however, lead to some serious problems on the streets, with pissed people smoking outside of pubs sparking off each other and passers-by, and that's why you get what R4+Z is talking about.

Onan the Clumsy
27th Oct 2005, 13:13
boiling oil's too good for 'em :*

frostbite
27th Oct 2005, 13:16
No-one noticed how nulabour get us all wound up about things that are not really important so that we don't notice what they are really up to?

By eroding insignificant freedoms, they are steadily creating the big brother state control of all everyday life.

419
27th Oct 2005, 14:37
Surely the people who work in those areas have a choice too

Yes they have. The smokers who work in those bars and restaurants affected, have until summer 2007 to either give up smoking whilst at work, or find another job.

Why do people (smokers) always say that non smokers have a choice not to visit "those areas". True, smokers have rights, but so do non-smokers.
If I want to work in the hospitality trade, or visit a bar, why should my choice be severely limited due to the actions of a minority of the population.

under_exposed
27th Oct 2005, 14:47
419, but there are enough establishments for us to share them.
You will be limited but so will we.

419
27th Oct 2005, 14:52
U.E.
I agree, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, the bar/pub owners in the UK have known for a long time that the Government were considering a ban. Maybe if they had done more to make these places a bit more non-smoker friendly, the government might not have brought in the new legislation.

Biggles Flies Undone
27th Oct 2005, 15:04
Sorry, but I disagree 419. The Zeitgeist of political correctness and the nanny state make this inevitable. Just like the FSA which now regulates my industry and (IMO) simply exists to apportion blame, it is the duty of regulatory authorities to avoid blame at all costs.

I'm a lifelong non-smoker but I have always accepted that alcohol and a smoke are comfortable partners. I accept that, if I go into a pub, the passive smoking will probably do me more damage than the beer I drink, but at least I have a choice and I'm happy to make it.

Yes I will be healthier and my clothes will smell better after the ban - but I'm beginning to think that Orwell just got his date wrong....

Send Clowns
27th Oct 2005, 15:52
There is a rise in non-smoking establishments. There must be some way that can be encouraged without a government ban. I see no reason not to have some places where people can smoke; certainly private clubs should not be subject to such restrictions. They are private spaces.

Perhaps that's where the line should have been drawn - between public houses and private clubs, instead of the arbitary point of food or not. I could have taken that restriction more easily.

419

You missed my point entirely. I was not talking about bar staff who are smokers but responding to your argument that bar staff have to suffer second-hand smoke.

White Bear
27th Oct 2005, 16:57
Government legislating lifestyle choices is a very frightening thing.
The focus is on smokers today, with all kinds of ‘data’ to support these very 'PC' laws.
My fear is what or who is next, based upon the same kind of ‘data’?
No hospitalization or a charge for medical care, for those injured in car accidents who did not wear a seat belt, or crash helmet?
What about those, who for whatever reason, refuse an annual flu shot, or refuse vaccination?
What about those who are deemed ‘over weight’? After all we all ‘know’ how bad that is for you.
What of those who risk their lives in small planes, without professional pilots, just for fun?
And of course the 3 real sports in the world, boxing, driving racing cars, and bull fighting, (everything else is just a game) must be banned!

The very personal issue of how one chooses to live one’s life should not be the focus of hypocritical government legislation.
Regards,
W.B.

419
27th Oct 2005, 18:55
The very personal issue of how one chooses to live one’s life should not be the focus of hypocritical government legislation

But that is the whole crux of the matter.
This legislation is not about how you choose to live your life, but how your lifestyle choice affects others.
You will still be totally free to smoke in your house, your car, and inside some bars, and outside the others. Whilst, I will be able to drink in some bars without ending up stinking like an ashtray.

candoo
27th Oct 2005, 20:02
How long before peeps realise that all you need is initiative.

Having read and pondered the argument on both sides it seems the purveyors of alcohol are undecided now whether or not to become a "drink" only pub and allow smoking, or to keep the food on the menu and ban smoking.

Tis easy, most pubs I frequent are large enough to be divided into two properties. So we will have "Kings Head Eating and Drinking" next door to "Kings Head Smoking and Drinking" -surely a new licence on the same sized property with a similar sized clientele would not be too difficult to obtain.

Alas I suspect I am being too simplistic.

White Bear
27th Oct 2005, 20:21
419,
How very myopic of you.
There is a broader agenda.
W.B.

419
27th Oct 2005, 20:42
W.B.
Would that "broader agenda" be the total banning of tobacco products in the UK?

If so, I can't see it happening. However much the government say tobacco is harmful, there's no way they could afford to lose the income from the tax.

reynoldsno1
27th Oct 2005, 20:45
Half-arsed legislation - it's a bit of a ban.... in NZ they merely legislated that smoking was banned in workplaces - any workplace, no exemptions. That includes any pub, restaurant, private club.... easy.

Doesn't seem to have had a huge affect on the hospitality trade, and I now frequent these establishments much more since the smoke went. It has given arise to the phenomenon of "garage bars' in some neighbourhoods, thus bringing out the latent entrepeneur in some people....

The last time I visited the UK, about 3 years ago, I was very surprised by the number of people who still smoke (especially young women), and the stench in some shopping malls...

tony draper
27th Oct 2005, 21:11
The smuggling routs and protocols are already well established and in place Mr 419 nothing the chaps would like more than a total ban on tobacco,fortunes are already being made on the ciggy run,it would be a licence to print money,and I expectr a war on baccy would be as inefectual as their war on drugs,which is a cosmic joke, but then politicians are just stupid enough to do it.
I don't know any smoker round here that still buys legit ciggies, just about every street has someone who sells snide ciggies.
:cool:

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 22:33
I smoke – I don’t live in the UK so don’t care that much.
BUT
The point made by some about the amount the Govt gets from smokers and “the what comes next point”.

When the inevitable happens and a or some taxes go up to cover the loss of money that the Govt used to get from smokers AND they find their next “lets ban it target” I hope the non smokers acknowledge their role.

Hope all non smokers are happy paying the extra taxes that will be imposed to cover the reduction of income from smoking and hope you can support the next ban (on whatever it may be) as avidly.

Flying Lawyer
27th Oct 2005, 22:41
More nanny-state legislation.
Under the present system, people are free to choose between pubs/restaurants which allow smoking and those which don't.
The percentage of restaurants which ban smoking has increased significantly in the past ten years or so - presumably in response to consumer demand/to avoid losing trade.
Letting market forces decide never seems to be enough for the types who love to control the choice of others.

419
Why not just avoid bars where you'll end up stinking like an ashtray and spend your money at other bars more to your taste?

419
27th Oct 2005, 23:31
Why not just avoid bars where you'll end up stinking like an ashtray and spend your money at other bars more to your taste?

Which just goes to prove my earlier point.

Why should I have to avoid going to bars because of smokers?
This is exactly what I (and many others) have had to do for as long as I can remember.
Now there is change coming, the smokers don't like it. Well hard luck. Now you might understand what it's like not being able to go into a bar and enjoy yourself.

Send Clowns
27th Oct 2005, 23:43
Why should I have to avoid bars because of people watching football? Why should I have to avoid bars because of the whole design making an unpleasant atmosphere? Why should I have to avoid bars because they are full of pretentious people who love themselves? Why should I have to avoid bars because the music is too loud for conversation and not what I want to listen to? I avoid certain bars for all these reasons.

Are you saying that someone who opens a bar must open it to your tastes? That every bar must be what you want, there can be no bars for people who want something different than you would choose?

G-CPTN
28th Oct 2005, 00:33
The news that those who transgress (and smoke where they shouldn't) will be served a £50 fixed-penalty came as a complete surprise to the Police (who reckon they have more to do than hang-around bars, and can't even cope with drivers who use mobile phones . . . )

Pappa Smurf
28th Oct 2005, 01:13
I look at it this way

its nice to go into a building to revive the lungs from the car pollution and smog thats killing you on the outside.

Or maybe someone can make a fortune making a ciggy that the smoke smells sweat.

And after all those years of smoke filled clubs and bars why wasnt a law made to have exhaust fans installed to cope with it.

R4+Z
28th Oct 2005, 06:01
Why should I have to avoid bars because of people watching football? Why should I have to avoid bars because of the whole design making an unpleasant atmosphere? Why should I have to avoid bars because they are full of pretentious people who love themselves? Why should I have to avoid bars because the music is too loud for conversation and not what I want to listen to? I avoid certain bars for all these reasons.

All sounds very simple. But what about the poor sod behind the bar? This may have been the only job he could get and so in order to earn a meagre living he has to risk a possible death sentence. Just because some people want the right to pollute his working environment. Just wiat till someone wins a secondary smoking claim and things will have to change.

Blacksheep
28th Oct 2005, 07:05
I used to smoke, so I know what its like to crave a drag. I gave up in 1983 after smoking for 23 years, so I also know what its like to be overcome by smoke and how bad it smells.

One of the beauties of the British pub used to be that they were all different. Each catered for a different clientele, most were 'virtual clubs' with their collection of regulars and everyone had their particular favourite local. That line in the movie "Battle of Britain" summed it up. The old chap wanders into the shelter in a daze muttering "They got the Rose and Crown...." His wife turns to her neighbour and says "Well, he'll have to drink in the Red Lion from now on, won't he!"

My point was that the smokers' only bar at Changi Airport is doing a roaring trade precisely because of the ready made customer base. Non-smokers don't go in there, they go to the other bars. Someone mentioned smokers' only flights. That sounds like a pretty good idea too - a nice little earner. So, why not let the landlords choose? Smokers would work in smoking pubs and non-smokers in the smoke-free ones. Luvvies would continue drinking in the luvvies pub, football fans in the sports bar and so on. Free choice, free enterprise and free trade. Isn't that what our democratic way of life is supposed to be about?

As someone pointed out, there's actually a hidden agenda where the H & S fanatics want to put a stop to all things unhealthy or dangerous. Once they've won the tobacco war where will they turn their attention next? Fast food joints? Coca-cola and Pepsi?

...or Lord forbid, the demon alcohol itself?

henry crun
28th Oct 2005, 08:12
The problem with smoking only flights would be the rabid anti smoking lobby.

You can guarantee that a non smoker will demand the right to travel on it, then complain and if necessary, take the airline to court to prove their point.

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 08:22
R4+Z

Pubs are businesses and clubs are places for their members. Neither is a charity to employ those not able to work elsewhere. Your argument assumes that their purpose is to provide employment!

R4+Z
28th Oct 2005, 08:50
No my argument assumes the right of an employee to have a hazard free workplace and not be discriminated against on the grounds of whether they smoke or not.

Binoculars
28th Oct 2005, 08:55
Nurse!! I need a different medication please, I keep agreeing with Send Clowns. :uhoh:

It is interesting though, to ponder on just where the collision between the irresistible force of increased government intervention in private lives and the immovable object of the need for the taxes raised from alcohol and tobacco will finish up. As I think somebody pointed out previously, if those taxes start drying up, the non-smokers and non-drinkers had better prepare themselves for a very different feel to their hip pockets.

419
28th Oct 2005, 09:09
Are you saying that someone who opens a bar must open it to your tastes? That every bar must be what you want,

Not at all. What I'm saying is that every bar should be to to a standard that doesn't affect my (of the workers) health when we want to use it.

If anyone can prove that watching football, or listening to pretentious people can end up killing you, I will concede the point.

Everyone (Smokers) keep saying that non-smokers have a choice to go into pubs or workers have a choice to work there or not.
Would you say the same if it was you at work, (say you found out the aircraft you were flying was unsafe), and your employer turned around and said that "Yes, it's dangerous, but no one is forcing you to work here. You can always go somewhere else.

tony draper
28th Oct 2005, 09:42
Can't see the Working Mens Clubs complying up here, they still don't allow women into the Bar,food is not that popular except leek broth on a wednesday afternoon and free black pudding and tripe on a sunday morning.
Working Mens Clubs are not noted for huggy fluffery.
:E

Binoculars
28th Oct 2005, 09:46
In fact, 419, what "everyone" keeps saying, is that non-smokers already have many non--smoking areas available to them. That number is increasing, and the number of places where smokers can go is decreasing. I don't even see anybody complaining about that. The complaint is, I would suggest, at the suggestion that smokers should be left with NO areas to go. Do you disagree with any of those points?

R4 + Z takes this to unbelievable lengths by raising the heart-rending story of the poor guy sentenced to death because the only job he can find to support his starving family is in a smokers' bar, then throws in the dreaded "discrimination" word as backup.

Let's see if I understand this one correctly: setting up a bar where smoking is permitted discriminates against non-smokers, even though they are more than welcome to enter if they so desire, but banning smoking anywhere is acceptable, so presumably not discrimination? What a handy definition!

As for the argument about the aircraft being unsafe, that's dragging the bottom of the barrel. If you are going to use false analogies, at least obey the same rules. Thus, the employer would have a large sign painted on the aircraft "This aircraft is unsafe! Danger!! Nobody is forced to enter it, let alone fly it!!"

wilco83
28th Oct 2005, 09:53
419,

But drinking kills you and if you choose to drive after drinking you may kill others, so surely we should ban drinking as well? Although there a lot of emotive arguments for and against smoking in bars or whereever this is masking the reality that this governement is taking away peoples choices. Hunting may have been a minority sport and so has been banned because the majority supported a ban (right or wrong) but is not fishing cruel so when will that ban come or are there too many voters involved who fish?

I do see this as just chipping away at peoples ability to make their own choices in life and now we wonder why no one will take responsibility for their actions - they won't have to soon because they will have no choices to make.

Wilco83

TheFlyingSquirrel
28th Oct 2005, 10:31
There are no smoking pubs in the City of London - Old Broad Street I believe there is one - looks pretty busy to me - so it may actually improve business for publicans. Think of all those people who, like myself, do not go to pubs because of the smoking - they may be inclined to go out and drink and eat this way.

Biggles Flies Undone
28th Oct 2005, 10:56
I've just had a brilliant idea!

Ban the consumption of alcohol in all public places and public buildings. This will restrict alcohol consumption to domestic premises, thereby making city centres safer places and freeing police resources for more important tasks like catching speeding motorists :ooh: An extra bonus would be the return of public houses to the private sector, thereby releasing desperately needed accomodtion and saving a few greenfield sites from more bad decisions by John Prescott.

Truly inspired :E

419
28th Oct 2005, 11:16
Bino's, I totally agree with your point that there should be separate areas for smokers and non smokers, Unfortunately this doesn't happen in many bars in my area. Yes, there are some no smoking sections, but they are usually joined to the smoking areas, and as smoke drifts, they don't generally work very well.
As for the argument about the aircraft being unsafe, that's dragging the bottom of the barrel. If you are going to use false analogies, at least obey the same rules. Thus, the employer would have a large sign painted on the aircraft "This aircraft is unsafe! Danger!! Nobody is forced to enter it, let alone fly it!!"

Why is this a false analogy?. There have been loads of posts stating that bar staff know smoking is dangerous, and yet they choose to work in a bar. I just chose a different profession, and changed it from working in a dangerous atmosphere, to working in a dangerous aircraft.
As for the danger sign, how about "Smoking harms you, and those around you " found on many packets of cigarettes.

To be totally honest, this is such an emotive subject, I don't think there will ever be a solution that will totally satisy smokers and non-smokers at the same time.

T.D.
Working mens clubs won't have to comply, as they are private clubs, and not open to the public.

Wilco,
Yes drink driving kills, but consuming alcohol within a resonable limit will not affect anyone except me. The same is not true of smoking.

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 11:25
every bar should be to to a standard that doesn't affect my (of the workers) health when we want to use itWhy?

The business is set up to make money for the proprietor by providing a service to whomsoever wishes to use that service. It is not a public service that must be available to all, neither is it a charity to give money to those that don't wish to be employed under the conditions offered.

I never said those things would kill me. I was pointing out that not every bar is aiming at me as a customer, and likewise not every bar is aiming at you (as someone who wishes to avoid a smoke-filled bar) as a customer.

The aircraft analogy is far more complicated than you make out, and is not correct. In fat there are two points. Firstly aircraft can be made safe without fundamentally altering the use. Smokers cannot get the same experience in a bar - and a bar is all about the experience - if they cannot smoke. Secondly aviation is actually over-regulated in this country for "safety"; a perfect case for light-touch of legislation. I have indeed flown an aircraft that was maintained on a US 100-hour schedule, which is "less safe" than the UK 50-hour one. I had the choice to fly that aircraft or not.

No-one is forced to work in a bar. Bars are not charities there to provide work.

The Devil's Advocate
28th Oct 2005, 11:27
Why does this have to be so difficult. It has worked in many other countries, but for some reason the English goverment have to mess around with it, and set forward a half-arsed proposal that will do nothing more than enflame the situation. A complete ban to smoking in public places. Thats it, nothing else. Everybody who wants to go to their local pub still can.

Smokers say their being discriminated against because they can't smoke inside the pub, while all that is being asked of them is to take only a few steps and go outside the front door or into the beer garden for a smoke, is it really that much to ask? Smokers currently enjoy free reign over this country being allowed to smoke both indoors and outdoors leaving non smokers with nowhere to enjoy clean air, unless they leave their local for a non smoking establishment, which could be quite a journey.

Some smokers will say then that it is unfair that they have to go out to the cold, especially with winter approaching. But what about the summer, everybody wants to be drinking in a beer garden when the sun comes out, meaning it's good in the summer for you but not in the winter, while it is the opposite for the non smokers. It's a compromise!

And as for tax, how much money does the english citizen pay in tax in order to send your own people to another country far away to fight and die for a pack of lies?

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 11:35
419

The main reason the aircraft analogy is false is economic. If regulation did not force the same standards on all companies in similar operations then safe flying would be more expensive. Therefore safety would not be a strong consideration, and all flying would be unsafe. Regulation is required to level the economic playing field - and an acquaintance of some of my friends died when that playing field level was not enforced.

There is nothing more expensive about a non-smoking bar. In fact not only is it cheaper and easier to run (smoke makes a mess!) if you are correct and there is such a desire for smoke-free bars then they should be very popular and therefore profitable.

419
28th Oct 2005, 11:37
Why?

Because it's the law of the land. It's called "Health and safety at work"
Any employer must take all resonable steps to protect the health of his employees.
Just saying "if you don't like it, don't work here" is the sort of thing that went on in Victorian times, not in the 21st century.

I agree with your point about the bar experience, but what I, and most non-smokers want, is an area where we can drink without smoke. Yes, there should be compromise by having a smokers bar, and a non smokers bar, but why haven't the owners done this before, and only now considering it.

I'm exactly the same as TheFlyingSquirrel on this. I won't go into the majority of bars because of the smoke, and I know I'm not alone in this.
When you consider that approx 65-70% of the population are not smokers, there are probably plenty of people like us. There will probably be plenty of people to continue buying alcohol in bars, if smokers stop going.

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 11:51
That doesn't explain why! You can't just say it's the law - it isn't yet the law, and just being the law doesn't make it correct. the whole point here is a discussion of whether the law should change. There are plenty of jobs where "if you don't like it, don't work here" - in fact all of them. I cannot think of any job that everyone would like - even dressing room attendant for a fashion show!

Most jobs have a certain amount of risk. Health and safety legislation has gone too far yet still cannot eliminate all risks without fundamentally changing the nature of the product. This does change the nature of a bar from the point of view of the smoker.

Many bars do have non-smoking areas. They could have been mandated.

Why should a private club. for members only, not allow its members to smoke? This is private ground, with entry by invitation only, like your house. What business is it of the government?

If someone employs a cleaner are they to be banned from smoking at home?

Flying Lawyer
28th Oct 2005, 11:53
419

I'm not sure what point you think it goes to prove. :confused:
That you'd like all bars to be to your taste and you're pleased the government intervention will go a long way to achieving that?
That you don't believe in freedom of choice whereby non-smokers are free to choose non-smoking bars and smokers and those easy either way are free to choose bars where it is permitted?
That you don't think it should be left to demand/market forces to dictate naturally without the government controlling what we do?

"Why should I have to avoid going to bars because of smokers?"
Because you don't like being in a smokey atmosphere, and because you don't like coming out smelling like an ashtray.

I can easily understand why some people don't like being in smokey bars. What I don't understand is why some of them, like yourself, want to deprive others of the freedom to do so if they wish.

The Devil's Advocate
28th Oct 2005, 12:16
Flying Lawyer, non smokers are not trying to deprive smokers of their choices, there asking that if you go to the same bar as you always do, can you be nice and step outside for a smoke and then come back in. It's not asking that much is it?

TheFlyingSquirrel
28th Oct 2005, 12:18
FL - are you a smoker ?

My smokers poll has had a disappointing turn out, a bit like a local by-election really - but early results show that non-smokers have 2/3's of the vote ! Purely predictable IMHO !

TFS

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 13:03
Devil's Advocate

Why should it be illegal to set up a place where they can smoke and drink inside if they wish to do so?

TFS

I am a non-smoker, so is my view that smoking bars should be allowed in the majority? Since when do the majority control the minority? that is not what liberal democracy is about. We need tolerance and pluralism, not state control.

419
28th Oct 2005, 13:09
Flying lawyer, you wrote.

I'm not sure what point you think it goes to prove. That you'd like all bars to be to your taste and you're pleased the government intervention will go a long way to achieving that?


Do you mean like these quotes from some of my posts?. I've never said all bars should only be to my taste, simply that they should be suitable for smokers and non-smokers alike.

"Yes, there should be compromise by having a smokers bar, and a non smokers bar, but why haven't the owners done this before, and only now considering it."


"Bino's, I totally agree with your point that there should be separate areas for smokers and non smokers,"

"Maybe if they had done more to make these places a bit more non-smoker friendly, the government might not have brought in the new legislation."

Binoculars
28th Oct 2005, 13:24
419, I'm in agreement with you on a couple of points. I think the average person has a right to go to a bar or restaurant where he will not be affected by smoke from others. It would seem we here must already have more stringent anti-smoking laws than in England for all restaurants, airports, public buildings, shopping malls etc are already smoke-free.

I also accept that attempting to demarcate a smoking from a non-smoking area by a rope or an open door stretches credulity. So in the spirit of compromise, let's see how many people we can get to agree on some basic proposals.

1. Smokers should have the right to an (one) area in a licensed establishment where they can go and exercise their prerogative engage in their chosen drug.

2. That area should be completely quarantined physically from all other areas which shall be designated non-smoking.

3. Signs can be erected or painted on the walls or whatever else in large red letters with exclamation marks, skull and cross bones and whatever else you deem suitable, warning non-smokers and smokers alike that their fate is in their own hands from the time they enter through the door. No responsibility accepted by owner or employer.

4. NO employee shall EVER be asked to work in such a room against his will.

5. Since those conditions have been agreed to, there should be no restrictions on food service or anything else simply because it is a smoking environment.

6. If R 4 + Z's unfortunate hypothetical cannot find work anywhere else, well, um,, stiff shit really.

7. If somebody takes umbrage because it is their local, they can use the non-smoking areas at the same establishment. If they say "why shouldn't I be allowed in there just because I'm a non-smoker?" even more stiff shit. A bit of give and take here, perhaps?

Onan the Clumsy
28th Oct 2005, 13:26
Ok, I have a solution


First, make everyone who wants to smoke register for the priviledge, and you can have say a hundred pound registration fee so that'll make some money, then if any unregistered person gets caught smoking, the police are allowed to shoot them on site.

Then take all the people who registered and cart them off to a big building on an island and then chain them to desks with sewing machines on and they have to make clotes all day long. No wait a minute, the clothes will stink, so have them do computer programming and call center stuff. That way we destroy the Indian outsourcing industry as well.

Then hermetically seal the building and allow them to smoke all they want, no force them to smoke all the world's existing cigarettes and pump more smoke into the building, but keep it hermetically sealed. We could use Biosphere2 for this.

Then, just so the treasury doesn't lose money from sales, put 100% of theri wages directly into the treasury coffers.


Result, smokers get to smoke, non smokers are relieved from smoking plollution, the revenue stream is still in place and not an ounce of huggery or fluffery. :ok:


When they've all expired, you can pour a twenty foot thick layer of concrete on it too :p

tony draper
28th Oct 2005, 13:28
Hmm, one wonders if it is legal to advertize a job,
"Only Smokers Need Apply"
:rolleyes:

Flying Lawyer
28th Oct 2005, 13:47
The Devil's Advocate

I think it is - although I'm happy to do it if the proprietor has a 'no smoking' rule. I've got no objection to bars/restaurants banning smoking in response to consumer demand. ie If the proprietors determine that they'll lose more trade by allowing smoking than by banning it.
We can then choose between establishments according to our personal preferences.
If you want to smoke, choose somewhere that permits it.
If you don't want to be in a smokey atmosphere, choose somewhere else.
For some reason, that's not enough for some non-smokers.

Freedom of choice would, I suspect, eventually lead to the almost complete disappearance of 'smoking' bars/restaurants. No problem as far as I'm concerned. It would mean smokers would have no choice, but bad luck.
It's the government interference to which I object.


TFS
Yes I smoke, but it's the principle about which I have strong views, not some 'right' to smoke - I don't see it as a 'right'. However, I don't understand why some non-smokers see eating/drinking in a smoke-free environment as some sort of 'right'. In my view, their right is the right to take their custom elsewhere.
If I'm in a bar/restaurant which doesn't permit smoking, it doesn't bother me. It's my choice to be there. If I'd wanted tosmoke I could have chosen somewhere else to spend my money. If I really want a cigarette, I'll pop outside - as DA suggests. I respect the proprietor's right to choose house rules.

TheFlyingSquirrel
28th Oct 2005, 14:18
Thought so FL - now I know who put all those butts behind the hanger !;)

The Devil's Advocate
28th Oct 2005, 14:19
Flying Lawyer; If you want to smoke, choose somewhere that permits it. If you don't want to be in a smokey atmosphere, choose somewhere else
I can agree with that statement, even as a non smoker, but where is the choice? Every pub in the country that allows smoking wont wan't to suddenly stop people smoking if they know they will lose a big portion of their business. And why should a non smoker have to leave their favourite pub and make a further car / bus / train / taxi journey to a non smoking pub, when all a smoker has to do is walk ten to twenty feet to just step outside the door. That way everybody gets to stay in the same pub that they both want to stay in.

Binoculars
28th Oct 2005, 14:27
Devil's Advocate, did you bother reading my post? Do you have any thoughts on it or are you happy to bang on continually about smokers going outside to appease you?

Windy Militant
28th Oct 2005, 14:43
I for one would be glad to see a ban on smoking in Pubs.
Not for the smell or the secondary smoking but it'll get rid of the Non Smoking Smokers! :mad:
That's what really annoys me! Well that and the Tossers who sling Lighted Butts out of car windows, but that's a rant for another Time.

How many times have you been stood in a crowded pub when some divot, more often than not a woman lights up a tab and then proceeds to wave the thing all over the place. If you're going to smoke, smoke. Don't just wave the bloody thing about. I've had several shirts ruined because of this and recently I got stuck behind a stupid bint who started waving a tab about. To add insult to Injury not only did she windmill said tab about, but she started moving backwards forcing me into the people behind me. Fortunately at this point I saw a gap at the bar and Squeezed into it. Just as I moved to the side, the bloke behind me was struck by said tab on the side of his nose. A bit further up and it could have been quite serious. If you try to remonstrate with these people they just get stroppy and wave the things even harder. If it weren't for the weight of the cylinders I'd take my gas axe with me and see how they like it when I start waving that about the place. :*

BEXIL160
28th Oct 2005, 14:51
Just a thought, but has what constitutes "Food" in a pub actually been defined?

Do they mean full Table de Jour, or does a packet of crisps count?

Rgds BEX:confused:

Binoculars
28th Oct 2005, 14:59
Bexil, when you asked that a vague bell went off in my mind about an experience I had at my local. Rather than trying to remember the exact details, I did a search. I hope it's not considered too lazy to replicate a previous post, but it was on the same topic and summed up my feelings pretty well.

............................................................ ........................................

I was in my local today having a quiet ale and looking for a counter lunch, that wonderful institution whereby you get a large and filling meal of no great quality for a very low price, subsidised by the fact that you will sit there and knock off half a dozen beers while you are there. If you don't somebody else will.

I was informed that counter lunches are no longer available due to anti-smoking laws. Hmm, well, the do-gooders had to win eventually, but how come I can buy a steak sandwich or a roast beef roll or nachos? Because they're finger food. Que? As long as I don't use a knife and fork I can eat as much as I like, the end result being that I received a roast beef roll oveflowing with beef, plus chips and gravy, and spent 15 blissful minutes burrowing around with my fingers (!) in chips covered in gravy while people smoked around me. This is apparently acceptable.

This is getting ridiculous. Smoking in restaurants is already banned; fine. Smoking on public transport, in cinemas, in virtually any indoor area is banned. I'm talking about a public bar here; home of the punter, the beer drinker and the smoker. Shove your cafe lattes up your ass in these places boys and girls, can't you leave us one place where we can waive our rights and take responsibility for our own actions? Are you pious whingers so mean-spirited that you won't allow us even one sanctuary? As FL opined, the publican can decide whether market forces dictate hwe should have a smoking bar.


I gave up years ago, but I don't give a toss who does smoke. Give me my counter lunches back, it's my choice whether or not I inhale others' smoke.

feet dry
28th Oct 2005, 15:43
Candoo

Had a similar thought regarding splitting one large pub into two smaller pubs; one for drinking one for eating. I am sure it is not beyond the whit of man to conceive of such a dodge.

How about all pubs becoming private member clubs - no membership fee; membership proven by a piece of paper saying "You are a member of this here private members club" received at the entrance to said establishment. (Asinine) laws such as this will always be circumvented by the sufficiently resourceful. (Look at the succes of the hunting legislation and the associated reduction in fox kills - ha ha ha ha)

R4+Z
28th Oct 2005, 15:50
Bino's

I haven't had chance to read the posts since yours properly but I will quote myself here

No my argument assumes the right of an employee to have a hazard free workplace and not be discriminated against on the grounds of whether they smoke or not.

in what other industry would you find this not acceptable?

should an employer be entitled to ask thier employee to work in a toxic environment and be allowed to say you haven't got the job to someone who says "I don't want to risk that"?

Where do you draw the line?

Is mesethelioma something the asbestos workers should accept for the honour of having a job?

you accuse me of being emotive but what is the real situation?

By the way (and I will be accused of being the same as all others) I am an EX smoker of over 10 years and I gave up because I realised what I was inflicting on my young son. However if I go out I do not object to people smoking and don't even register the fact conciously if someone does.

Now have I got my spelling and punctuation correct? After all wouldn't want to give reason to have a go now would I.... to heck with it I'm off to bed.

:mad: :mad: :( :( :mad: :mad:

Send Clowns
28th Oct 2005, 16:37
Informed choice, R4. The employees of the asbestos industry did not know of the risks of mesothelioma. Those that apply to work in a bar know that there will be smoke and know that secondary smoking is a health hazard. I know that if I fly I have certain associated risks that are inseperable from the job. I still choose to join the occupation.

Can't people take responsibility for themselves? Yes employers take responsibilities for keeping risks to a minimum, but once that is the case the employee accepts the job or not on a balance of other factors.

Onan the Clumsy
28th Oct 2005, 18:40
Can't people take responsibility for themselves? well smokers can't.

I think Devil's Advocate was correct when he said "where is the choice?"

If a room holds two people, one smokes and one doesn't, then the smoker has an effect on the non smoker whereas the non smoker has no effect on the smoker.

If the same room held the same two people and smoking was banned, then the smoker would not effect the non smoker, whereas the non smoker would indeed effect the smoker.

So to argue whether a smoking ban is right or not simply comes down to whether or not you want to smoke. The argument for is exactly the same as the argument against. :rolleyes:


It would be interesting to search back and see how earlier threads have treated loud music coming from cars, littering or general chavish behavior, because there isn't really any difference between these activities and smoking.









Q: is it 'affect' or 'effect'?

henry crun
28th Oct 2005, 21:54
Onan: You said "the police are allowed to shoot them on site."

Do you mean they would only be allowed to shoot them at the place the smoking offence occurred ? :p

tony draper
28th Oct 2005, 22:29
Smoking is banned oin the Metro Center,one makes a point of walking through with a unlit ciggy in ones gob,really annoys em up that does,fecking jobsworth fluffy tossers.
:E

redsnail
29th Oct 2005, 01:01
Decent ventilation would go a long way to alleviate many non smokers gripes about cig smoke.
I would have no dramas about a pub or night club being full of smokers if the ventilation was working well.

I rarely go to the local because I don't like the dense fog of cig smoke that's there.

If you want to sit and eat in a smokey environment I recommend Moscow...sheesh. They'll all die from lung cancer at the rate they smoke!

My personal view is that cigarettes should be banished from the face of the earth. However, since buying cigarettes is still a legal activity I am concerned about the State making law breakers out of ordinary citizens who are partaking in a legal activity.

Send Clowns
29th Oct 2005, 02:11
Onan

Why can the smoker not choose to go to a room in which to smoke? If the non-smoker is in there too then it is his choice, no-one forces him into the room. You are assuming everyone has a right to have any space dedicated to him - that just is not the case.

It used to be that non-smoking areas in pubs and even restaurants were rare. Then your argument would have had some merit, although still have had at heart the fallacy that people have a right to go anywhere without being offended by others' behaviour. However now non-smoking areas are so common in bars that all those I have visited this week have had them.

The Devil's Advocate
29th Oct 2005, 06:49
did you bother reading my post? Do you have any thoughts on it or are you happy to bang on continually about smokers going outside to appease you?
Sorry Bino's, but i'm sure I started my last post with flying lawyers name at the top, as in it was addressed to him and not you. And i'm sorry to be banging on about smokers going outside to appease me, but here's the horrible truth. In countries that have brought in a complete smoking ban, smokers are required to leave a premises to have a smoke outside, and the idea of sealing parts of a bar off with no possible way of smokers and non smokers breathing the same air is a little unrealistic :ugh:



Shove your cafe lattes up your ass in these places boys and girls, can't you leave us one place where we can waive our rights and take responsibility for our own actions? Are you pious whingers so mean-spirited that you won't allow us even one sanctuary? How about this for a sanctuary, your own home or your car? Not big enough, then what about The Great Outdoors :oh:

R4+Z
29th Oct 2005, 08:00
Even your own car will soon not be allowed. There is talk, in some countries, of banning smoking in a car if an infant is present. It could even be argued that whilst smoking, you are driving without due care and attention. Lets face it if you can be done for eating an apple (as I believe someone was recently) then why not smoking a cigarette.

eal401
29th Oct 2005, 10:21
Hope all non smokers are happy paying the extra taxes that will be imposed to cover the reduction of income from smoking and hope you can support the next ban (on whatever it may be) as avidly.

No, I am not. That is why I'd be quite happy for provision to be made for the legalised druggies to continue paying to give themselves cancer whilst contributing to the cost of looking after them when they are dying. Allowing smokers to smoke (because some would sooner kill their own kids than respect other people) and non-smokers non-smoking spaces means winners all round! I have reduced risk of dying in agonising pain coughing up bloodied chunks of my lungs, smokers can carry on thinking they are the centre of the universe! Result!

:ok:

Binoculars
29th Oct 2005, 15:35
the idea of sealing parts of a bar off with no possible way of smokers and non smokers breathing the same air is a little unrealistic
Quite. Technology hasn't yet come that far. My whole list of suggestions is not worth considering because it's impossible to have two separate sections of the same building serviced by different air-conditioning plants.

You continue to believe what you want to believe, and I, as a non-smoker will do likewise.

I see the contributions of the Hon Member for Preston on bloodied chunks of lungs etc.... are up to the usual erudite standard which we have come to expect from the speed camera threads. Onya eal!

(Umm, R4, since you're here, did I mention spelling or grammar or anything similar to justify yesterday's attack? :confused: )

R4+Z
30th Oct 2005, 01:45
Binos

Sorry the bit about spelling and the like was to head off the usual pedants that come out of the woodwork when such a heated debate takes off. I did not intend to malign you.

eal401
30th Oct 2005, 10:22
No, you are right Binos. I should have included something on blood clots, heart attacks etc.

But, hey I don't try and deny them their rights. Something that only works one way where many smokers are concerned.

tony draper
30th Oct 2005, 11:08
Oh yes indeedy,in ill health because yer a druggy and stick needles in yer arm or a homosexual because yer stick other things in other places ,or liver fecked? because you been chucking grog down yer neck for the last thirty years?,you poor buggah come in youre a victim of society.
In ill health because you smoke? **** off yer filthy leper its self inflicted.
Piss on em!
:suspect:

eal401
30th Oct 2005, 11:46
No, alcoholism is self-inflicted too.

Binoculars
30th Oct 2005, 15:09
I'm going to have a wild guess here that Mr D is a heterosexual ex-drinker who never thought of taking the evil drugs that abound, but smokes forty a day. Close? :}