PDA

View Full Version : Smoking ban in UK pubs..


timmcat
14th Feb 2006, 21:39
Well, it's gone through. Who would have thought this possible just a few years ago?
Never smoked myself, and consequently don't much care for passively inhaling it and coming home with my clothes smelling, but one wonders how those who enjoy / can't give up the habit might feel now?
BBC link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm)

Rollingthunder
14th Feb 2006, 21:48
Welcome to 2006. You're about 2 years behind the time, excluding Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, some other places..... who are a few centuries behind the time and NFLD an extra half hour.

Want to smoke (and I do) pop outside for the gasper. And try that in Montreal in Feb...or YWG for that matter.

Don't subject staff to it.

tony draper
14th Feb 2006, 21:54
Don't frequent pubs so tiz a matter of complete indiference to me,however they were talking about banning smoking in your own home, in that case the whining hand wringing touchy feely huggy fluff twats can go f*ck themselves.
:suspect:

DG101
14th Feb 2006, 21:58
I understand a significant number of the "red (neck)" states a little South of your location don't have a ban either, Mr RT. Or are you including them in the list of places that are "a few centuries behind the time"?

tom de luxe
14th Feb 2006, 22:01
(Mods, feel free to move this to the Hamster Wheel anytime - I just didn't want to disturb the somewhat monothematic and meditative sequence of pro-muslim and anti-muslim posts over there).
So it's happened. There will be a smoking ban in England effective Jan 1st, 2007 (or so the beeb thinks), and there will be no exceptions for private members' clubs.
:oh:
Even as a non-smoker who is very much in favour of a smoking ban in pubs my London local has rather benefitted from the recent introduction of a "non-smoking" lounge area, I'm stunned. What a Nanny State the UK has become... there are Cigar clubs in California and, of all places, New York City. And why shouldn't there be private smoking clubs, after all, nobody is required to join a club, and those who do can surely decide themselves on whether smoking should be allowed?! Not in the UK... maybe there is a case now for "Tribal casinos" or similar? Or maybe there is an exception if I add just a little weed to my tobacco?!
:yuk:

Rollingthunder
14th Feb 2006, 22:06
They will eventually catch up, Mr. DG. Health and Safety and insurance will make it so.

BlueWolf
14th Feb 2006, 22:51
They did it here, just over a year ago. People complained, but not to the point of doing anything about it. They'll wait till we have barcodes on our foreheads and they're coming for everyone's firstborn....and still say "can't do anything about it, it's the Government, baa, baa..."

Doesn't bother me particularly, on account of I kicked the weed about 15 years ago. However whereas the pubs used to stink of smoke, now they stink of farts and BO. Take your pick ;)

speed5
14th Feb 2006, 23:02
let me get this right.....

i can go into a shop and buy ( with money i have earned from working...yes i know that`s a dirty word to some) cigarettes legally. But now i can`t smoke them anywhere except outside or in my own home.

Otherwise am i a criminal?

But... i can take a fix of heroin (illegal) break into YOUR house (illegal) steal YOUR prized possessions, (thus spoiling your life into the bargain ) sell them ( probably illegally) , or mug someone (illegal, and traumatising their life ) just to get the money ( which i haven`t worked for ) to get my next fix and begin the cycle all over again.

All in the knowledge that if i get caught i will be given free medication as a substitute, looked after nicely and probably given a holiday to boot as well!!

But i can`t have a fag?

THIS COUNTRY HAS GONE INSANE.

Think i`ll have a cigarette to calm down.

Please Mr Politician is it okay to have a smoke?, please Mr Censor is it okay if i can have a smoke?, please Mr Control Freak is it okay if i have a smoke?
please

Say again s l o w l y
14th Feb 2006, 23:22
A bl**dy good thing.
I don't want to stink of smoke and breathe in 2000+ chemicals just because I want to go down the pub.

It's an utterly ridiculous habit, spending a fortune to make yourself smell, die young and now seemingly forcing you to get hypothermia as you have to go outside for a fag.(Thereby reducing your life expectancy even further!)

I find nothing more pathetic than seeing a bunch of shivering office workers huddled outside buildings trying to get a "hit." Maybe this will convince people that giving up would be sensible and help stop people taking it up in the first place.

You may be able to tell, I'm an ex-smoker myself. (Not evangelical at all!)

redsnail
14th Feb 2006, 23:32
Yes I know buying cigarettes is legal. Yes I know smoking said ciggies is legal.
However, after years of suffering from smokey environments to such an extent I don't go out half as much, it's a bloody good thing. Now I might nay, probably will go to my local for a "couple" knowing full well I won't have to grab the ventolin.

Yes. 100% in agreement with the ban.

dontpressthat
14th Feb 2006, 23:34
Well said SAS!!
Never smoked myself and most of my firends puff away like a choochoo but getting ar**d off with having to wash every item of clothing the day after a night out down the booza pickling my liver courtesy of MsStella artois.

Jo Cover
14th Feb 2006, 23:52
Speed 5...

So you think that it's OK for you to indiscriminately kill others with your cigarettes via passive smoking then do you??

It's about time they banned them. I am for one sick of breathing in everyone elses secondhand smoke and my health has proved this!

Maybe a charge of ABH might be apropriate and wake the 'I am entitled to smoke anywhere I like brigade' into reality!!



Touch paper lit.......

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:10
Smokers have the right to destroy their body through smoking, go ahead!

However, they do NOT have the right to invade my personal space with their smoke fumes, after all, a right ceases to become a right when it removes another right.

A few muppets will argue the economic value of the revenue from the tax from UK smokers, the day when this revenue is considered more important then the health of everyday people is very sad indeed... :mad:

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 00:21
Only the booze left to ban from pubs now then. Perfect they'll be then. :rolleyes:

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:25
Only the booze left to ban from pubs now then. Perfect they'll be then. :rolleyes:

You're a boring fella arent you!:hmm:

Booze causes many sins in this world, but at least its consumers enjoy its consumption, as to the simple relief from craving that nicotene provides.

BlueWolf
15th Feb 2006, 00:31
All fair commentary. Smoking is bad for you. It does kill people, passively as well as actively. It doesn't smell good, it poses a fire hazard, it puts an unnecessary strain on the health services, etc etc etc.

Many things in life pose a health hazard, and many things (choices) place a strain on the health services. Alcohol. Coffee. Red meat. Sugar. Jogging. Saturated fats. Preservatives. Pesticides. And so on.

I don't think the "save the staff" argument is a credible one. Work in a petrol station, and you'll be exposed to diesel and exhaust fumes. When I worked in pubs - admitedly a while ago now - breathing second-hand smoke simply came with the territory. If I'd thought it was that much of a problem, I'd have changed jobs.

In NZ about 24% of the general population and about 54% of pub patrons are smokers. Even after I gave up, I didn't avoid the pub in order to avoid smoke. I went there for the same reasons I still do; to have a drink and a yarn.
I can understand - and support - the banning of smoking in confined spaces, such as aircraft, and where food is served, such as restaurants. But public bars have always been about the public, and an awful lot of the public do smoke.

Government makes it legal, regulates it, taxes it, and does very nicely out of it. To turn round and say that people are no longer to be allowed to smoke in their public bars is more than a little hypocritical; and to my mind, it's another example of the creeping controlism of (primarily) left-ish Governments the world over.
To say that people may not smoke in their private clubs is unconscionable, and should be disallowed by straight out public disobedience.
Much of the initial outcry here came from the RSAs, whose members were not only encouraged to smoke by the Government of their day, but actually issued with tobbacco rations.

In rural New Zealand the ban is widely ignored, as I understand is the case in parts of Ireland. There aren't enough inspectors to go round, and almost no-one cares anyway.
I believe that after initial trials in parts of Oz, so much revenue was being lost from reduced pub gaming machine takings that the ban was reduced to a partial floor area arrangement, or a certain distance from the bar (step back a metre before you light up).

All that aside, this is simply the wedge being knocked in a little further. What are they going to ban next? Rumour has it that our own dear control-freak Government is working on plans which will limit the total volume of alcohol which may be served to any customer during any session, further rumoured to be about three litres of beer or equivalent per night.

Already the smoking ban here has led to a proliferation of private, semi-legal "garage pubs", which are not licenced premises but attached to private homes, complete in some cases with pokie machines. So long as money doesn't change hands, there is no breach of the law, and the smoking ban doesn't apply. People use chits and club memberships instead.

A restriction on what people may or may not drink, will see the return of the speak-easy, plain as day.

You can make a million arguments for and against the use of almost any substance or device by almost any person. How about unmetabolised medications getting into the groundwater system? What about the effects of aromatic hydrocarbons from perfumes? Noise pollution from i-pods? EMF pollution from people using cellphones in one's immediate vicinity? Vehicle exhausts? Here's one for the future; ozone pollution from electric cars?

There's a great deal to be said, I believe, for a little give and take as regards the multi-faceted soup of pollution amongst which we all live, and a great deal to be concerned about as regards Governments who want to ban people's freedom of choice - and the motivation of those who support them.

Just a thought.

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 00:37
How do you come to that conclusion, FL69?

Actually, it's simply the case that I'm bemused by the way people cry about a pub being smokey. It's hardly unexpected is it? Do these people, people like you I presume, go along then sit there being miserable because it's smokey, suffering it so they can have a moan later? What a barrel of laughs that must be.

Pubs were smokey before any of us used them. Live with it, or don't go. It was always so and is what I do.

To answer your curiosity, I'm a non-smoker, of the 'worst' kind, an ex-smoker. It seems, however, that I've retained the ability to live and let live and not jump up and down excitedly due to the removal of yet another liberty of the public at large simply because it suits me personally. :rolleyes:

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 00:37
As far as I know, cigs as we know them (not pipes or snuff etc) have been around since about 1850. Public houses however date back atleast 500yrs. And before u chimneys start firing shots over the bow, my local dates back to around 1485 an poss circa 800ad.

I reckon the fresh air and beer brigade win this one hands down.

Either that or make lighters 25 each.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:45
Have you ever worked in a gasoline station? The staff do not get exposed to fumes in any degree like passive smoking in a public house.
The fact that certain staff put up with exposure just to retain a job is upsetting (these guys are students, low earners etc), and is not a testament to their acceptance to these conditions.
FFS they are doing you a favour! How many smokers dream of being clear of their habit? If its much short of 100% i'd be surprised!
As i've said before, I don't oppose smoking, but you DO NOT have a right to poison non smokers with your fumes, which will always be in the case in any unprurified zone or public region.
The constant comparison to drinking is hilarious. Most drinkers do not drink all day every day, and as bad as the health issues surrounding alcohol issues is, the average drinker does not consume like the average smoker.

tony draper
15th Feb 2006, 00:45
One notes according to the news the ban does not extend to the bars within House of Commons.
:rolleyes:
Do as I say not as I do,

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 00:51
How do you come to that conclusion, FL69?

Actually, it's simply the case that I'm bemused by the way people cry about a pub being smokey. It's hardly unexpected is it? Do these people, people like you I presume, go along then sit there being miserable because it's smokey, suffering it so they can have a moan later? What a barrel of laughs that must be.

Pubs were smokey before any of us used them. Live with it, or don't go. It was always so and is what I do.

To answer your curiosity, I'm a non-smoker, of the 'worst' kind, an ex-smoker. It seems, however, that I've retained the ability to live and let live and not jump up and down excitedly due to the removal of yet another liberty of the public at large simply because it suits me personally. :rolleyes:

The arguement that some people are thick enough to do it after knowing the risks is not a substancial arguement IMO. The fact it used to be smokey, doesn't mean we are stupid enough to put up with that environment again.

I also am an ex smoker, and before you bang on about liberty, I personally have the right not to breathe in tobacco smoke anywhere, period.

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 01:01
Fl69... 10/10

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 01:08
Do you, FL69? They must have snuck that one through.

You are of course, entitled to you opinion, as it's not yet a 'right'. However, what I was suggesting was that to my mind the choice, as far as pubs go, should work both ways. There are plenty of pubs around with environment control systems in place providing non-smoking areas which are, in terms of health considerations excepting those verging on the paranoid, very effective. Why not go there? Or is it that you prefer a more traditional pub? But then they'd be the ones where people tend to smo... Oh.

Mutual tolerance. Freedom of choice. Give and take. Ya' know? Being anti or a non-participant doesn't, to me, mean the rest must, without alternative, go and be damned. But maybe I'll get over my tolerance eventually.

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 01:16
Syllo..
As far as I am aware, Ones rights extend to the expressing of an opinion and as for 'traditional' pubs go, I would refer you to my earlier posting concerning the history of the pub and the cigarette.

Its about time that the majority (non smokers) didnt have the habits of the minority inflicted upon them whilst enjoying a night out or scoffing a ploughmans.

DPT

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 01:18
Do you, FL69? They must have snuck that one through.

You are of course, entitled to you opinion, as it's not yet a 'right'. However, what I was suggesting was that the choice, as far as pubs go, works both ways. There are plenty of pubs around with environment control systems in place providing non-smoking areas which are, in terms of health considerations excepting those verging on the paranoid, very effective. Why not go there? Or is it that you prefer a more traditional pub? But then they'd be the ones where people tend to smo... Oh.

Mutual tolerance. Freedom of choice. Give and take. Ya' know? Being anti or a non-participant doesn't, to me, mean the rest must, without alternative, go and be damned. But maybe I'll get over my tolerance eventually.

Its not my opinion, I simply do have a right to clean air. Providing non smoking zones? Are you smoking crack? To reiterate my point to the mentally stunted, we have human rights. However, they are revoked when they destroy other rights of other beings. I tolerate your choice to stupidly smoke. Go ahead, stunt your childrens growth, and die young. But when YOU push the results of your stupid decisions on me and the other level headed people in the western world, we ARE going to be pissed. I am a UK citizen and have visited many regions of the US. No-smoking bans seem to be completely succesful in all zones they have been enforced, especially after the smokers stop sulking.

Remember it wasnt that long ago you could smoke on planes, that got banned, has it reduced the total level of air travel?

BenThere
15th Feb 2006, 01:24
As a veteran of the California 'Smoking in Bars' War, I always thought the solution was clear. Allow proprietors of drinking establishments to designate their premises as smoke-free or smoke friendly and let customers and the free market decide.

Unfortunately these nannies aren't interested in your freedom, but in making sure you do what they think is right.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 01:34
As a veteran of the California 'Smoking in Bars' War, I always thought the solution was clear. Allow proprietors of drinking establishments to designate their premises as smoke-free or smoke friendly and let customers and the free market decide.
Unfortunately these nannies aren't interested in your freedom, but in making sure you do what they think is right.

Calling a smokers stupid decision to smoke as "free" is fair enough, as again repeated enough times, it doesnt press on your own right to clean air. If it does, its no better then myself putting a pipe into your bedroom from my car.

I personally dont want to avoid bars because the owners dont care two shits about my wellbeing.

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 01:35
In theory BEN, thats a good plan of action and one with which I would agree, however if every or the majority of lanlords designated their pubs as smoking pubs, as im fairly sure they would, nothing would change.
As I said earlier, most of my mates are smokers and they nearly all do most of their puffing at the booza, if that became a non event the majority would quit... their words not mine.

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 01:38
Would that be the majority of the public as a whole ot the majority of pub goers... sorry, dontpressthat, I must respond to FL69 now I've seen his post.

FL69, Did you actually read my posts? Why do you assume I'm smoking crack by suggesting a modern pub with a very effective air circulation system? Do you know how effectively it can and has been done? Are you calling me, personally a 'stupid smoker'? I must assume so since you've quoted me and then written But when YOU push the results of your stupid decisions on me capitalising the word 'you'. If so, I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, go back and read again.

I really don't understand why me merely stating that I, personally, don't really mind if people smoke around me and that if I do I can always avoid such situations has got you so worked up. Your opinion, my opinion. Neither right neither wrong. Just opinions. No need to suggest I must be on crack for holding mine now is there? Simply, a bit of smoke for a few hours just doesn't send me into a frenzy. It seems it does you, even the mention of it in fact. Do you visit the pub regularly?


Edit: Good Lord, FL69. I personally dont want to avoid bars because the owners dont care two s**ts about my wellbeing. So, even if they openly advertised that they're 'smoker friendly' and were, let's say, in the minority you'd be put out if some bars were to allow smoking and not just happily go to the majority that didn't? Incredible.

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 01:43
Syllo..
I refer to the 'majority' as the majority of the population and as we are discussing the 'public house' where the entire public (age permiting) are free to venture I would suggest that differentiating between pub go'ers and public is irrelevant.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 01:46
Would that be the majority of the public as a whole ot the majority of pub goers... sorry, dontpressthat, I must respond to FL69 now I've seen his post.

FL69, Did you actually read my posts? Why do you assume I'm smoking crack by suggesting a modern pub with a very effective air circulation system? Do you know how effectively it can and has been done? Are you calling me, personally a 'stupid smoker'? I must assume so since you've quoted me and then written capitalising the word 'you'. If so, I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, go back and read again.

I really don't understand why me merely stating that I, personally, don't really mind if people smoke around me and that if I do I can always avoid such situations has got you so worked up. Your opinion, my opinion. Neither right neither wrong. Just opinions. No need to suggest I must be on crack for holding mine now is there? Simply, a bit of smoke for a few hours just doesn't send me into a frenzy. It seems it does you, even the mention of it in fact. Do you visit the pub regularly?

Visit regularly? I'm doing my ATPL's FFS! The pub is my outlet! My stating your tolerance of the situation, that you will tolerate this, you don't mind a bit of smoke. Have what ever amount of respect for your body you want! However, the majority dont want to be poisoned by others! If I work hard to keep myself healthy, I do not want to enter a public place (pub, public blah blah) to suffer the idiocy of others.

PS I do not intend to disrespect anyone with my comments, but by accepting smokers rights, I personally feel you disrespect my own :)

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 01:59
FL, 'You'? What's 'you'? I ask again, did you read my posts? Clearly not. Try doing so. It tends to lend credence to what are otherwise seemingly blind rants. See? I don't smoke yet can tolerate it.
Knowing your attitude toward smoking in pubs then, does it impinge upon the pleasure of your visits?



DPT, I'd say it's very relevant. People who don't go to pubs would tend not to be affected. Of course, you'll no doubt now encourage me to join you in considering how many of those who don't visit the pub are not doing so for the very reasons we're discussing. Well, there may be a very few to whom that does apply. For myself and those others I know who don't smoke, it's not the case however. So, experience and observation tell me that it is indeed a very few. Pub goers are pub goers primarily, smokers or not secondarily. The slim majority of pub goers are smokers and I'm prepared to let them get on with it. If I decide I no longer wish to share that environment with those smokers I'll find myself one of those pubs with the super air circulation systems I mentioned. Although, according to one member of the 'hang all smokers brigade' I'd apparently need to become a crack smoker to actually consider doing so. Seems a little drastic to me.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 02:11
FL, 'You'? What's 'you'? I ask again, did you read my posts? Clearly not. Try doing so. It tends to lend credence to what are otherwise seemingly blind rants.
DPT, I'd say it's very relevant. People who don't go to pubs would tend not to be affected. Of course, you'll no doubt now encourage me to join you in considering how many of those who don't visit the pub are not doing so for the very reasons we're discussing. We'll there may be a very few to whom that does apply. For myself and those others I know who don't smoke, it's not the case however. So, experience and observation tell me that it is a very few.
I've read you arguements plenty of times and they centre on the right to do something that harms others. How is this blind rants? Fumes getting to your head from your local? :hmm:
You suggest that the majority (non smokers) hide in a special environment that removes toxic fumes. How the hell is this fair? Are the non smokers causing the problem? Why cant smokers piss off outside?
Sorry I forgot, they are incapable of putting their butts in bins.
Why should there be "smoker friendly" is this some sort of elite nearing cancer crew the rest of us cant join?

Get into your head, smokers are the problem, not the non smokers. I will support a closed off "enviromentally closed" area in a public area where smokers can "enjoy" their habit, but at their loss of liberty not mine!

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 02:24
Syllo... Firstly, lets not get silly we're all friends here, (I hope) and im certainly not in the hang all smokers brigade.
Like I said, the majority of my friends smoke and indeed several, ex's but the argument of relevance in the public/pub go'ers stakes surely is in my favour. Anybody, be they a regular few nights a week'er such as myself or a once a fortnight for a coke and a publunch'er deserves the right to some fresh air.
I would imagine, almost every adult in the uk be they smokers, drinkers, eaters or any other sort of ?'ers has been into a pub at somepoint in their lives and has the right to do so at any time in the future.
Therefore the 'majority' of the population statement is entirely relevant.

MungoP
15th Feb 2006, 02:25
Personally I'm all for individual freedoms....If someone chosses to suck on a filthy smelly weed and die coughing their lungs out in their early sixties then let them. Just don't let it spoil my evening ... If someone sits behind me in a restaurant and quietly injects heroine into their veins it won't bother me in the slightest... someone sitting 10 tables away lighting the filthy weed screws up my meal..
Like homosexuality it can be indulged in by consenting adults and behind closed doors.

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 02:31
It was your continued manner of 'you'ing me as a smoker that made me think you hadn't read them fully, were responding bombastically and thus ranting. Must just be your natural charm then. ;)

Why should there be "smoker friendly" is this some sort of elite nearing cancer crew the rest of us cant join?It's this bit about some bars having the option to be friendly or non I really don't understand though. It just doesn't matter surely. If it's a smokey place and you don't like smokey - Don't go there! It's that simple. What's the problem? Are you concerned the stupid, mentally stunted, disrespectful smokers may be having some kind of fun you'd be missing out on? Why would you object if you wouldn't want to go there? I mean, you could, no one would be stopping you, you'd just depise the environment and those that are making it dispicable to you. :confused:


DTP, That comment was a friendly jibe at FL69. Just seeing if he really was reading. Yes, all friends, of course. You've got to watch some round here mind. ;)

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 02:35
BUT..... syllo, at the moment all pubs allow smoking, therefore the 'majority' non smokers would have to stay home or sit in the park with the tramps for your plan to work. Be sensible.

FL69
15th Feb 2006, 02:36
It was your continued manner of 'you'ing me as a smoker that made me think you hadn't read them fully, were responding bombastically and thus ranting. Must just be your natural charm then. ;)

It's this bit about some bars having the option to be friendly or non I really don't understand though. It just doesn't matter surely. If it's a smokey place and you don't like smokey - Don't go there! It's that simple. What's the problem? Are you concerned the stupid, mentally stunted, disrespectful smokers may be having some kind of fun you'd be missing out on? Explain? Why would you object if you wouldn't want to go there? I mean, you could, no one would be stopping you, you'd just depise the environment and those that are making it dispicable to you. :confused:

So if bars legalise heroin, does this mean its right and i can only go here if I am prepared to put up with it? Pubs are public places, and all attendees have a social responsibility to not jeapordise the health of fellow attendees. As said before, I smoked for a year years ago, and I know that I am not missing out on anything, I actually pity them.

And naturally, I apologise if you took offence to the tone of my posts, I just dont like breathing in tar, and I do like a good debate :)

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 02:38
Syllo...
I agree,I have read a few heated arguments get silly on here, Im all for, 'have your say, listen to others' and if need be, agree to disagree. All friends indeed:ok:

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 02:48
DPT, Plan? Plan? What plan? It must be getting late, I made a plan? All I've ever said is that I, personally, am not bothered by people smoking in pubs and that I don't understand FL69's huge objection to a few 'smokers bars' as suggested by Ben There. I began to ask the question about the 'majority' purely to throw in another angle for you to consider in your assertion that the majority of pub goers are non and/or anti smoking.

FL69, I'm lost. I asked a simple question. What would your issue be with such a situation? Why would the existence of places, ones you've stated you have no wish to be in due to the smoke and the stupid, mentally stuted individuals therein, put you out so?
How can you not want to go somewhere and yet not want it to exist just because you just may want to go there in spite of your wish not to? Crazy. Even the sentence doesn't make sense.
Not that it has any relevance, but to use your analogy if I must, I'm sure there are places (not bars and such, but squats etc.) you can go where people do such drug related things as you suggest. You're surely eager to visit the squats where such things go on then. You would be if it were smoking going on there afterall.

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 03:12
syllo, I never actually stated that the majority of pub goers were either non or smokers specifically. what I said was that the majority of the public are non smokers therefore as pubs are by definition a public place the majority should have the final say.
As for the plan.. I was refering to your suggestion that non smokers avoid smokey pubs... Clearly impossible as all pubs are smokey.

DPT

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 03:16
Ergo - smokey pubs are most popular. Goodnight. ;)

dontpressthat
15th Feb 2006, 03:27
HAHAHAHA, and there endeth your argument eh???

I would have expected more from you.

DPT:D

Blacksheep
15th Feb 2006, 04:02
The day is coming when they'll ban drinking in pubs.

Mark my words. :}

lasernigel
15th Feb 2006, 07:31
I stopped smoking just over 2 1/2 yrs ago after a heart attack.Managed to stay off and never objected to people smoking around me.
Jan 1st Mrs L decides to announce at 0040 in the pub that our marriage is now over.First thing I scrounged after the initial shock was a cigarette.Have now started again and hope to stop once the house etc is sorted out.But it is helping with the stress.
Simple economics....Smokers contribute approx 10 bn in taxes every year.They say smokers cost the NHS money,however recent figures have shown this to be around 1.5 bn.Smokers as a whole die at an earlier age.So less burden on our ever shrinking state pension scheme.

So when income tax has to go up by approximately 4 - 6p in the pound.Will all you non smokers promise that you will not winge,tick or start off a thread saying 'Taxes up what's the score'.

Will the last free man in this luvvy duvvy,some ones to blame,nanny state please turn off the light or blow up the Houses of Parliament.:ok:

ORAC
15th Feb 2006, 07:56
You can smoke in your own home - except if you need to be visited by a anyone from the council, NHS, gas company etc. They all now nicely request you refrain from doing so when their staff visit. If you do, you´ll be blacklisted.

You can also smoke outside - unless its one of a still to be decided list of public "semi-contained" venues, such as a railway station, sports ground, open-air concert etc (alright to deafen them though....). Wouldn´t surprise me to find parks and all other government/council owned grounds on the list when it´s published.

Never smoked in my life. Tend to agree, however, that the nanny state is tending to get out of control.....

heebeegb
15th Feb 2006, 08:10
It's about bloody time. Well done parliament - most sensible and popular law passed in years.

halo
15th Feb 2006, 08:13
Both of my grandparents died of lung cancer due to smoking.

Roy Castle died of passive smoking.

It's these two simple facts that ensure I have never been a smoker and have no real desire to inhale other peoples smoke just because they are a bit too anti-social to step away for a cig. In return, I don't use my mobile phone on the train or in restaurants, I don't preach to people about the benefits of a healthy diet and exercise and I don't force my choice in music on you.

It's all about having some respect for the other members of the human race. I have no issue with people who want to smoke and I respect their decision to do so, but likewise I do not wish to inhale your smoke and you should respect my decision on that.

got caught
15th Feb 2006, 08:13
Fantastic- :ok:

Gouabafla
15th Feb 2006, 08:25
Given the alternatives, I'm all in favour of this ban. However, I think that Lembit Opik was talking a lot of sense (surprisingly) when he said that the legislation should not be to ban smoking but to ensure clean air. That way if someone can come up with adequate technology (and it clearly doesn't exist yet) that evacuates the smoke and the other noxious that smokers breath out, some sort of co-existence should be possible. He pointed out that with all of the money they stand to lose, the Tobaco companies would probably pay up for the research to be done.

However, the bottom line for me is that I'll be able to go out for a drink with my wife in eighteen months time. At the moment that freedom is denied us because there are no smoke free pubs anywhere near us and where there are non-smoking areas, the smoke doesn't seem to read the signs.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
15th Feb 2006, 08:39
Result:ok:

SSD

BlueWolf
15th Feb 2006, 08:45
And when they ban smacking, and drinking, and smoking in your own home, and defending yourself, you'll shout hurrah and support that too?

Already you're getting Euro ID numbers and cards.

What a tragic end to a once proud people.

Fools.

Parapunter
15th Feb 2006, 08:53
Never met a smoker who didn't want to stop & I include me in that, but most tellingly, I was talking to one of our suppliers last week, who packed in after 15 years & she said that the worst of it was contemplating the damage done to herself when after two weeks or so, she no longer even misses them. OTOH though, I have a mate who after 6 years off em craves them badly still after all this time. Different strokes for different folks I suppose but I reckon it's probably far sighted if typically nannying by this shithouse of a government.

SyllogismCheck
15th Feb 2006, 08:57
No, DPT, I was joking. It simply seemed a convenient point to leave it and get some sleep whilst twisting your words a little for fun at the same time. As I say, I'm not bothered by people smoking around me whilst you are. We both have our own opinions, and that's as it should be.

I'm still interested to hear FL69's reasons for objecting so strongly and for such incomprehensible reasons to the compromise Ben There suggested however.

powdermonkey
15th Feb 2006, 09:40
All you folks in the UK need not worry. When the ban was introduced in Ireland, it was panic stations allround, for the smokers that is. What? a pint without a smoke....it just won't be the same. However, within a few months, pubs adapted ( beer gardens etc ) and people quietly went outside for their smoke. No problem, even in winter, gas burners and heat lamps took care of that. The funny thing is, all the laughs are to be found outside with the smokers, seems to be a great place to chat and meet strangers. It's actually a litle boring inside now. But, you do not come home smelling like an ashtray, and that is a good thing. It's now perfectly normal not to smoke in any public place and I now find it strange when I go abroad and find people smoking indoors. I quit for over 3 years, but during my ATPL's started to smoke the odd one here and there. The funny thing was that I absolutely refused to smoke indoors in my own home! Let's be honest, the room stinks afterwards!
So don't worry, smokers adapt and overcome. Enjoy the challenge and in a few months you will all wonder what the fuss was all about!

effortless
15th Feb 2006, 09:48
Yippeee :D I can start going to the pub again! Damn it's not until next year.:confused:

EGBKFLYER
15th Feb 2006, 10:02
Gouabafla - ventilation technology does exist and is already in use in several places... I forget which, but a couple of UK airports (STD and SOU?) had some extract units fitted a while back.

My employer (which has a vested interest in promoting sensible smoking regulation) is also trialling ventilation units in head office. In my experience, they work well, as long as people keep their fags close to the extract point and blow smoke at least vaguely toward it.

It will be nice to go to a pub and not stink of stale tobacco afterwards, but bans are something I object to in principle and it's a shame we haven't tried a more compromising, technology-led approach first.

got caught
15th Feb 2006, 10:50
Can't see what all the fuss is about. Passive smoking not only offends people, its actually bad for their health.

Indoor smokers are no better than drunk drivers, and I don't hear any support for them.

:{

strafer
15th Feb 2006, 11:00
That way if someone can come up with adequate technology (and it clearly doesn't exist yet) that evacuates the smoke and the other noxious that smokers breath out, some sort of co-existence should be possible.That's the way it was going. A few years ago, many pubs in London started to install expensive air filtering systems where the smoke was almost instantaneously removed. Once breweries realised that a smoking ban was inevitable, of course they stopped. The simple truth is, more people are anti-smoking and the numbers are rising. As more stopped going to the pub, more pubs would have responded.

We have a government that loves to ban things. And it won't stop with tabs.

teeteringhead
15th Feb 2006, 11:01
One notes according to the news the ban does not extend to the bars within House of Commons.
:rolleyes:
Do as I say not as I do,

....and I heard on the news this morning that prisons are also exempt!!

So why is prison officers' health (and barmen in the House of Commons) less important than barmen generally???

Mudfoot
15th Feb 2006, 11:28
Washington Dulles (IAD) has smoking rooms with high-power vents in the mid-field terminal, but rather ineffective to be honest - room always looks foggy.

Mrs. M has asthma, so I haven't smoked indoors anywhere for years! It's a personal tip-of-the-hat to those who don't, and I respect their preference. Even in homes where the host/hostess says "Go ahead, we used to smoke", I WILL NOT smoke in a non-smoker's home - I even prefer to go outdoors if the home is a smokers. And pubs/restaurants, the same - I prefer to smoke outdoors, cause I prefer not to contribute to indoor pollution again due to the misses' asthma, and inbetween puffs I can take a fresh breath. I very much enjoy smoking, I know what it does and the ultimate results, but I try to be considerate of others no matter what or where. In my mind, I will not support those who seek to ban smoking altogether.

Cheers, y'all.

Soapbox carefully stowed beneath the seat...

airship
15th Feb 2006, 11:32
So why is prison officers' health (and barmen in the House of Commons) less important than barmen generally??? Simply because the dirty business of running countries has always been conducted in smoke-filled rooms. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Keep the prisons smoking ban exception though. You know where all too many politicians deserve to be... :ok:

Miles Hi
15th Feb 2006, 11:43
Wait till you try the new fad of "Smirting". All pubs in Ireland are non smoking, so when you go out to light up, you will meet females of the opposite sex.

You light up (smoking), get chatting (flirting), therfore, Smirting!

The trick is to try and get her to stay for a second one.....:p

airship
15th Feb 2006, 11:50
...you will meet females of the opposite sex. :confused: ;)

airship
15th Feb 2006, 12:31
Whether or not pubs are smoking, or non-smoking, isn't it a shame human beings aren't all hermaphrodites though...?!

So even on a 'slow night' walking back home from the pub with yer mates, one could innocently ask "OK, so whose turn is it to be 'it' tonight then?!" ;)

Oldjet Jockey
15th Feb 2006, 14:53
;) just to add a little humour to the debate I saw the following notice pinned up once in a bar.

"Notice to the smokers"

you have a pleasure ! smoking. The residue of you pleasure is tobacco smoke and foul air. This gets into my hair, my clothes, up my nostrils and into my lungs. All without my consent.

I too have a pleasure! The occasional pint of beer. The residue of my pleasure is urine. If I was to urinate on your hair, your clothes or even up your nostrils without your consent would you find it acceptable?????

Really the crux of the matter is that in confined spaces the smokers are inflicting unwanted displeasure on non smokers. If I sit or stand by someone else while I drink my beer I cause them no problem. If people want to smoke let them do it in their own homes or out in the open. I try not to offend other people and would like to think that others show similar respect to me. Unfortunately since that is not normally the case legislation has become necessary to control the lack of consideration shown by the average smoker.
Smoking bans already exist in aeroplanes, trains, cinemas etc. Why should pubs and restaurants be any different. I'm all in favour of private clubs making their own rules and one can then join or not in accordance with ones acceptance of the rules. It is not the same in public places!!!!

BOFH
15th Feb 2006, 21:39
It's a nice way to quell debate over the ID cards they're bringing in - a good day for bad news, as the 11th of September was described. Also a good day to announce the shooting of yet another police officer (whom I hope is recovering comfortably).

Why this government should legislate over the smoking room of my club - where Gladstone and Churchill smoked - that I may not do so, fills me with ire. That they are the party of proles and diddicois - the sixteen-year-olds with a gasper hanging out their mouths pushing theirs benefits baby around - sets the scene.

The appropriate solution is for segregated smoking and non-smoking areas - but a wholesale ban is Draconian. Still - it's only liberty - who gives a toss? Where the Hell are the priorities? Cops being shot, society's falling apart, and 'Oh - my clothes smell'.

I gave up last year, and it was a great pleasure to suddenly begin smoking again yesterday.

BOFH
who would rather succumb to a smoking-related disease than hold out for a cure for Alzheimer's. Right now, I'm more perturbed by the ID card.

matkat
16th Feb 2006, 06:46
BOFH times have changed get over it,the reason why segregated area will and never has worked is simple no one has told the smoke not to go into the no smoking area.Just because Churchill and Gladstone smoked in Your "club" dopes not give You the right to polute other Members lungs if You are not happy why not resign and smoke in the comfort of Your Own home where presumably You are permitted.

419
16th Feb 2006, 07:37
BOFH
who would rather succumb to a smoking-related disease than hold out for a cure for Alzheimer's
A choice of which you're perfectly entitled to make as it's your body
.
419
Who would rather not succumb to a smoking related disease, due to someone else's lifestyle choice. (as would I imagine so would the majority of non smoking bar staff)

tug3
16th Feb 2006, 08:18
"On 26 March smoking will be banned in pubs, clubs, and enclosed public spaces in Scotland".

"Being introduced at 0600 BST on 26 March".

"Offenders face £50 fixed penalty".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4708268.stm
Imagine how busy the courts will be with all those who strike a light in a pub, forgetting the new rules. Not forgetting the assaults on bar staff/doormen who try to eject the persistent pissed up offenders who refuse to stub theirs out at the first time of asking!

Rgds
T3

RaraAvis
16th Feb 2006, 08:29
Speaking of the separation of smokers from non-smokers, must say the saddest little situation I've seen was in one of the domestic airports in Manila.
All the ciggie die-hards were herded into a glass cabin, not unlike a large aquarium, where enfolded in a gray thick cloud they were desperately puffin' away.......
Families parading past were pointing the 'smokers cage' out to their kids with a dramatic warning commentary and finger pointing:ouch:.... The whole scene strongly resembled a zoo, really...:uhoh:

As for the smoking-ban thinggy, hey, I'm a non-smoker, so its much welcome!
However, having friends who smoke I do not throw a fit every time we go to a bar or club and it's smokey. I know it will be so before I go and if I feel I don't want to put up with the whole smokey scene, guess what, I simply won't go.

We can run in circles until the cows come home, discussing the 'human rights' of smokers and non-smokers but why, each side can put up a convincing argument, nobody will have the ultimate 'right'.

Where I draw the line though is my home, nobody smokes in my home...

tony draper
16th Feb 2006, 08:52
Hmmm,one seems to recal a American Senator getting into trouble for suggesting isolating homosexuals from the rest of the community in order to prevent the spread of AIDS,not a glass box but a similar idea, perhaps they should have listened to him,after all theirs is a lifestyle choice is it not?
:rolleyes:

effortless
16th Feb 2006, 09:22
Hmmm,one seems to recal a American Senator getting into trouble for suggesting isolating homosexuals from the rest of the community in order to prevent the spread of AIDS,not a glass box but a similar idea, perhaps they should have listened to him,after all theirs is a lifestyle choice is it not?
:rolleyes:
Funnily enough, having lived most of my life in Brighton, I have long come to the conclusion that those who make the most fuss about homosexuality are the ones with the most tendencies. Repressed of course. :p :E

tony draper
16th Feb 2006, 09:28
Yeh thats th one thats alway punted out, bit like the racism charge if anyone dares say anything about ethnicity and with the same end in mind.stopping any discussion of same.

ORAC
16th Feb 2006, 09:36
To return to the subject, I not that one of the questions to be raised during the consultation period concerns the staff of companies who cater for functions such as private dinner parties. It is being suggested that smoking be banned at all catered functions, even in a private home, to protect the staff.

I would imagine this will have the said companies in a panic. It could wipe out their businesses in one fell swoop.

got caught
16th Feb 2006, 10:00
Wait till you try the new fad of "Smirting".

You never know, you could meet up again on some cosy little radiotherapy unit someday soon.

"Why, what an unusual little cancer you have, does it involve all of the mouth, or just the tongue ?"

Lets not forget the real honest point- smoking sucks :uhoh:

PileUp Officer
16th Feb 2006, 10:06
Hmmm,one seems to recal a American Senator getting into trouble for suggesting isolating homosexuals from the rest of the community in order to prevent the spread of AIDS,not a glass box but a similar idea, perhaps they should have listened to him,after all theirs is a lifestyle choice is it not?
:rolleyes:

But unless they walk round splattering you with bodily fluids then you're inlikely to have your health put at risk!



Once I was at a music festival and one of my friends kept blowing his smoke right in my face. I informed him that if he insisted on forcing me to passively smoke I would force him to passively drink. I persisted and so I spat a mouthful of beer all over him.

It's never happened since. :ok:



I was trying to argue why this ban is a good thing yesterday and was out-argued by someone saying that Bars and Pubs are actually private places and so whether they are smoking or non-smoking should be down to the owner. He basically said if you don't like it then don't go there.

Pappa Smurf
16th Feb 2006, 10:09
Thats it--Im giving up smoking

Ill take along my raw onions,salami etc to enjoy with my beer .If i fart all night,while picking my nose do you think anyone would complain.
I enjoy a beer after all those fumes i suck in driving in a traffic jam.
Food places-----no smoking yes
Pubs--segregated-----install exhaust fans.

The do-gooders are changing the world to fast

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 10:13
Smirting:-
By definition, those that you would meet are smokers?
No thank you!

phnuff
16th Feb 2006, 12:37
One of the pubs in my home English town went no smoking on 1st Jan. I was speaking to the landlord last weekend. He has just had his best ever January in terms of takings - people who normally dont go in pubs have been venturing out. All power to him

Lets not forget, the reason this has happened is because of the passive smoking not of pub customers, but those of the staff; and a good thing too. I am wondering just how long it will be before some lawyer somewhere puts a cancer sufferer up to sueing his/her employer for either allowing them to work in a smokey area or allowing them to go and light up outside during working hours.

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 12:43
I heard the other day about some guy who was suing a tobacco company. The legend on the pack said "Smoking kills" but he was still alive . . .

Irish Expat
16th Feb 2006, 12:57
The aul smirting is great craic, I don't smoke, but when I'm back in the fair aul emerald Isle, I find meself heading out of the pub with mates when they go for a puff.
The ban is a "breath of fresh air", pardon the pun, might even help the wannabe non smokers to kick the habit, If ye ask me, bring in a blanket ban across the EU.
I had a pal come over to visit me recently in Holland, he kept disappearing and I didn't know what he was at, seems he kept forgetting you could smoke here and was heading outside for his fix.....hahahahahahaha Brilllliant:D

HowlingWind
16th Feb 2006, 13:08
you will meet females of the opposite sex.Saying one will meet "members of the opposite sex" would be understandable enough, but this one has me somewhat confused. It would rather imply one is likely to encounter transvestites, transgenders, or goodness knows what. :confused: :eek:
Why must JB always descend into matters of sexual deviancy? :E

G-CPTN
16th Feb 2006, 13:10
Surely lesbians are females, yet there has to be one who is of the 'opposite' sex?

There's givers and takers.

" There's the Ally McBeal type. She doesn't look or act gay. She's "fem" and seems like she'd be too into boys. She parallels the "average Joe" with her heterosexual appearance. She acts "fem" and if she's gonna act "fem," then she must be into boys.
Then there are the "bull-dykes." I deem them my personal bodyguards whenever I go out. They kinda look like Joan Jett and seem more than willing to jump in the ring with Mike Tyson. Usually, they're damn tough-looking with short, butch hair, jeans, T-shirts and leather jackets. They parallel the "fems" of the gay male community in that they adopt the opposite gender role.
Lastly, there are those who sorta fall in between. You're not really sure if she's a lesbian, but you're heavily suspicious. She's not all that fem, but she's not all that masculine either. She's the most confusing 'cause you can't tell if she wants you, the Ricky Martin type, or the Gwyneth Paltrow type across the room. "

HowlingWind
16th Feb 2006, 13:12
That might be straitforward enough if one were a lesbian, G-CPTN, but from a bloke's point of view it still seems a bit of a worry... :uhoh:

Binoculars
16th Feb 2006, 13:28
Five pages and counting, on a subject that's been done to death before. Talk about Hamster Wheel. Listen, how does this sound in plain English?

1. Smokers agree that non-smokers have the right to go to a venue where they will be free of cigarette smoke so they have nothing to whinge about.

2. Non-smokers reluctantly agree that smokers have a right to inhabit their own little piece of earth, provided it is completely segregated by whatever means such that no smoke gets into said non-smokers' precious turf.

3. Non-smokers also agree that they will NOT insist that the piece of earth they happen to want to go to on a a particular night is that occupied by the smokers. It's not that hard, really. If you don't like it, don't fcuking go there. Diana Krall or Willie Nelson or Harry pharking Connick will NOT be playing there, ok? The only miserable bastards in there will be the smokers, drinking their beer, watching Sky bloody Sport and smoking to their hearts content.

Is that ok? Or are you egregiously evangelical non-smokers so bloody miserable that you really don't want anybody to have any pleasure at all if you don't agree with it? :mad:

strafer
16th Feb 2006, 13:48
It's something I've been thinking about for a while, but as of tomorrow, I shall be an ex-smoker. There's two main reasons, 1) the boy is starting to ask questions now and it's time for Daddy to set an example and 2) I refuse to stop smoking because that bastard Blair tells me to.

After 25 years and 3 packs a day, it won't be easy, but I shall return in 30 days to let you know whether I'm a winner or a Michael Winner.

There's one Montecristo at home waiting to be the last of a long line, but after tonight, it's goodbye tobacco my old friend.

Binoculars
16th Feb 2006, 13:55
It's a mighty hard road you are about to travel, strafer, and I wish you luck. If you are not totally and absolutely committed, if some part of you is saying I'll just give it a go, do my best and see how it turns out, it won't work.

First thing you need to do is destroy that montecristo as a symbol. Rip it apart, put it in the bin and feel satisfied that you have made the first step. If you smoke it you'll know it's not really a special going away treat but a sign of weakness, a sign that you really don't want to give up. A strong symbolic suggestion is essential. Get your boy and your wife in and have a symbolic "destruction of the past" ceremony by destroying that thing.

Good luck. Let us know how it goes. There's an awful lot of us out here who know the feeling. :ok:

419
16th Feb 2006, 13:57
1. Smokers agree that non-smokers have the right to go to a venue where they will be free of cigarette smoke so they have nothing to whinge about
And what happens if the non smokers in question are workers in the place in question?.
Why should they either give up their job, and not be able to find another one, or suffer the risk of getting a smoking related disease.
If you don't like it, don't fcuking go there.
Which, as from Summer next year, will be the option given to smokers.
If that's your advice for non-smokers, I assume that you will be willing to do the same, without complaining, when you want to go to a bar?

strafer
16th Feb 2006, 14:03
I do see your point Binoculars, but surely I can destroy it by cremating it rather than ripping it up.:ok:

On a more serious note, having a symbolic last smoke on a hand crafted cuban cigar, followed by total cold turkey is what I think will work best for me. For others, it will be patches or gum, or even a gradual cutting down. But hey, time will tell.

Thanks for the support.

Binoculars
16th Feb 2006, 14:15
419, are you one of these poor put upon workers, or are you using them to support your argument?

OK, let's put another condition in and see if that will shut people up. Let the holy government enshrine in legislation that no worker will be forced to endure cigarette smoke against his/her will. Perhaps an arrangement could be reached where those who are happy to work in public (smoking) bars could be paid a little more. Hazard money perhaps? Are we getting anywhere yet? Or are you desperately concerned about the rights of those who are happy to work in smoke-filled bars because you are worried about their health? They know not what they do, so you feel obligated to save them from themselves?

As for me, I'm happy to go anywhere, or not, as suits my circumstances. i suggest you try it.

Send Clowns
16th Feb 2006, 14:33
419

No-one forced them to get a job there! Jobs are not created for the benefit of the worker, but to the requirement of the employer. If the worker does not fit that requirement (for a couple of examples - doesn't have the flying hours the employer demands, or doesn't want to work in the environment the job entails) then no-one is forced to take the job!

Send Clowns
[A non-smoking former barman]

Binoculars
16th Feb 2006, 14:41
Praise da Lawd, I agree with Clowns. :ooh:

airship
16th Feb 2006, 14:44
The availability of nappy-changing facilities in non-smoking pubs is quite deporable IMHO. Yer modern pub should at least be equipped with bottle-warming facilities. Ideally, it should be natural to say to the bartender, "4 pints of olde Thumpers and something for the toddler, please!" :rolleyes:

Also, shouldn't playing darts be banned too, unless the points are adequately protected? I was thinking along the lines of suckers... ;)

effortless
16th Feb 2006, 14:49
Bless you giver uppers, I hope that you are successful. I know that we are rehearsing old threads but here's just a little reiteration to help you.
I have in the past, been involved in research into thoracic disease. Specifically non small cell lung cancer, without exception my subjects were smokers. Without exception they are all now dead. Without exception they all died a miserable, shitty death.
The cancer trials in this country are currently recruiting thousands of patients not hundreds. These do not include all lung cancer patients just the ones suitable. Lung cancer is on the increase especially among women. This is due to the increase in smoking in young women.
In addition I have watched family members die long and breathless deaths of other smoking related diseases. I have a close friend currently fighting lung cancer and one of the most beautiful women I have ever met was diagnosed with lung cancer when she had her first baby. She died just after his first birthday.
No-one thinks that it will happen to them. This is usefull otherwise none of us would have climbed into our bomber, dropped into France or charged the enemy if we thought that we were vulnerable. This said more people have died of smoking than any of the above hobbies.
Nearly all new smokers are children.
For those of you who think that it is a matter of free will, ask yourself two questions.
1: How old was I when I started?
2: Can I give up?
If you were under 17 when you started and you cannot give up now how can you say that it is a matter of free will?

Binoculars
16th Feb 2006, 15:03
1. Smoking increases exponentially the risk of lung cancer. A given. Is anybody here arguing?

2. Anecdotal evidence about the tragic deaths of beautiful innocent or ignorant people is heart rending in the extreme, especially if you know those people concerned.

3. Nearly all new smokers are children. Err yes, who did you expect them to be?

4. I started at 15, gave up on Sept 29, 1992 at the age of 39. None of my friends could believe that I would ever give it up. So what?

5. I happen to find the company of "public bar people" refreshingly honest. It's a world generally free of the wankers I find elsewhere, and most of the inhabitants smoke. If I didn't want to put up with that I wouldn't associate with them. Everybody else has the same choice. Even you.

Send Clowns
16th Feb 2006, 16:14
I thought the same thing, Binos :D

419
16th Feb 2006, 17:16
No-one forced them to get a job there! Jobs are not created for the benefit of the worker, but to the requirement of the employer

And the employer is responsible for the health and safety of that employee.
Sacking someone because it would cost too much money to ensure they were working in a safe environment went out in the Victorian times.

No one forces people to work down coal mines or on oil rigs, but the employers still have to take care of the workers.
What would happen B.A. turned around and told all its aircrew that health and safety reg's were no longer being followed, and if they didn't like it, they should leave. After all, no one forced people to work for BA.

No, I don't work in a bar, but I used to when I had to pay for university acommodation.

Tim_CPL
16th Feb 2006, 19:08
You're a boring fella arent you!:hmm:
Booze causes many sins in this world, but at least its consumers enjoy its consumption, as to the simple relief from craving that nicotene provides.

Exactly, and when I consume a drink, it does not cause harm to anyone else, unlike smoking. I just don't understand smokers. They have no rights to pollute my air and potentially harm my health, whilst simultaneously stinking the whole place out.
I am being serious when I say it is high time to ban the sale of cigarettes totally. If smokers can't stop this filthy habit, then the government needs to step in and be even more proactive in stopping them.
I'm sure in 50 years, smoking will be about as accepatble as smack is today....

- Tim

yintsinmerite
16th Feb 2006, 19:38
I heard a whinging smoker on the radio going on about his rights today. What about the rights of non smokers to have air not filled with carsongentic fumes. What about the rights of junkies to shoot up in public places??

Smokers are addicts the same as those on heroin, crack or any other drug. Its just that smokers make money for PLC's and are therefor deemed acceptable. To all those who cry 'Nanny state' - yes, and for once its made a good decision

BOFH
16th Feb 2006, 19:56
Just because Churchill and Gladstone smoked in Your "club" dopes not give You the right to polute other Members lungs if You are not happy why not resign and smoke in the comfort of Your Own home where presumably You are permitted.
Matkat,
what part of 'Smoking Room' did you fail to comprehend? Let me similarly insert some Bizarre capitals In replying that a club Is generally patronised By People of Similar interests. What goes on inside should be none of your business. Is it really so Unrealistic to think that some people might choose to congregate and do something which is perfectly legal, in A place which is segregated from other areas, because they want To?

I hope that you are not being taken out of context here, Effortless, but you said I have in the past, been involved in research into thoracic disease. Specifically non small cell lung cancer, without exception my subjects were smokers.

So I want to know, from the people who are getting their panties into a twist about the bar staff, why there is a sudden concern for their wellbeing? It's a straw man, put up purely and simply because you know that there would be more than an ample number of people who would elect to work in the presence of smoke - particularly in an occupation where the primary business is the serving of an intoxicant. They already do!

I seem to recall a certain type of person at school - the library monitor.
Teacher (having happened upon a salacious drawing on the blackboard): "Who drew this?"
Library monitor: "Sir! Sir! It was Smith!"

Teacher: "It would seem that three boys left Sports early today. Own up, or you'll all get four cuts of the cane"
Library monitor (not waiting for anyone to own up): "Sir! Sir! It was Smith, Jones and Brown!"
(I am sorry to say that this actually happened)

People like this grew up to be our legislators.
BOFH
Edited to say:
yinsinmerite
What about the rights of junkies to shoot up in public places??
Many countries (Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzlerland) have 'shooting galleries' where people may take their drugs in private. It's a good thing. Oh, and your spellchecker is broken.

VFE
16th Feb 2006, 20:12
Well as a recovering smoker I have actually welcomed this ban. If you'd have asked me one month ago my views would've been much different. I was given a nudge towards giving up by my ex who watched her dad die over the course of three long years at home from lung cancer and I also had a bit of a health scare myself (everything ok now) which together made me realise that it ain't all about me. We have a responsiblity to those we love to take care of ourselves and to not do so is bloody selfish, especially when it is a pure hedonistic pursuit which could endanger our lives.

I used to say that I didn't care and "when ya gonna go, ya gonna go" but one day I shall probably have a wife and kids and will I really want the thought that my behaviour earlier in my life caused me to die later in life when I'm perfectly content and happy watching my kids grow up? Do I heck! This thought occured to me when I got that health scare and my then girlfriend started slowly going off me.... it makes you think I can assure you.

Been using the nico patches when I have a few beers as that is the worst time for smokers as the cravings come forth like a spring! But after a while those cravings have had a tendancy to only come in waves now as opposed to being ever present. Last night after a bit of a knee's up I thought to myself as I sat there glowing in an alcohol induced haze of contentment "I haven't even thought about having a cigarette tonight!"..... and that was a great feeling. Not having smoke blown in my face when in the boozer come next summer will mean I'm not drawn by temptation - great news!

Besides, who wants to give the government more bloomin' tax than they have to?!

VFE.

BOFH
16th Feb 2006, 20:51
VFE
Well done on stopping. One thing I found helpful to consider is that the physical craving is minute. Compare it to acute thirst - if you have ever suffered that - or hunger. There is a world of difference. You don't need the nicotine - it just feeds the habit you used to have.

The smokers' point here isn't about you - or, to an extent, them. It's about suppressing other people. Every smoker will want to stop one day. The issue is that smokers have been prohibited from congregating indoors where they choose to do so. Who has the right to tell these people that they cannot assemble, unless they're in the Palace of Westminster or prison? Why the Hell aren't the anti-smokers picketing Parliament demanding that the downtrodden workers in the bars there be protected in the same way as their own bar staff? It's not about bar workers - it's about them, as they're not in Parliament or prison.

Using the crutch of having no temptation around you means you're depriving other people from what they'd considered to be their own freedom. Isn't it better to look at smokers and think "I used to be like that - thank Glub I'm out of it now", rather than the attitude of "Hey! I've given up! Now you have to!"?

There is about a 10-year window where you can smoke without worrying too much about the health risks, and you escaped. Congratulations.

BOFH

effortless
17th Feb 2006, 08:23
BOFH I have in the past, been involved in research into thoracic disease. Specifically non small cell lung cancer, without exception my subjects were smokers.

I spoke only to my own research. There have been several patients at UCL hospitals whom I met who were victims of passive smoking. Roy Castle was a famous example. My little diatribe was prefixed:

Bless you giver uppers, I hope that you are successful. I know that we are rehearsing old threads but here's just a little reiteration to help you.

So any emotitve or "anecdotal" staments were made with the best of intentions.

yintsinmerite
17th Feb 2006, 08:38
"Oh, and your spellchecker is broken"

BOFH, my spell checker went when I was born. Phoenetic and English are words seldom seen together


VFE - well done and keep up the no smoking. It's a hard but worthwhile route

effortless
17th Feb 2006, 09:09
There is about a 10-year window where you can smoke without worrying too much about the health risks,


Don't kid yourself!

airship
17th Feb 2006, 13:06
Our elected representatives must be having a quiet chuckle amongst themselves. Yet again, by putting the cats among the pigeons, they've managed to make life more complicated for everyone else whilst preserving their own... :rolleyes:

Now that our MPs enjoy decent salaries, a multitude of allowances and generous benefits at the end of their terms, I suppose the latest scam of exempting their own smoking members is par for the course.

What amazes me is that they haven't yet made any official moves to reserve certain lanes for their exclusive use whilst making their way to and from their dachas. Unless of course, their official transport are buses... ;)

RaraAvis
18th Feb 2006, 13:19
To resuscitate:rolleyes: this thread, have a question regarding the statement made by FL69
Booze causes many sins in this world, but at least its consumers enjoy it's consumption, as to the simple relief from craving that nicotine provides. How can you be so sure that smokers do not enjoy their cigarettes every bit as much as you enjoy your booze?:hmm:

Oh, and as for this,
Or are you egregiously evangelical non-smokers so bloody miserable that you really don't want anybody to have any pleasure at all if you don't agree with it?

somehow an observation made by Mencken comes to mind....Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.:suspect::}

Sailor Vee
18th Feb 2006, 15:12
From yintsinmerite,
Phoenetic and EnglishI do think, dear boy, that the point being alluded to was thus:-
carsongenticI believe that even this cannot be pronounced carcinogenic, in any way, shape or form. Or maybe it refers to an ageing Johnny Carson?
On the thread, Ireland's ban has had no effect on the majority of smokers as they frequent pubs that have a 'partially-covered' area that does not fall foul of the law. Personally, my better half and I gave up smoking in our own house at the end of winter '95. We also gave up smoking in anyone's house at the same time, no hardship. So, it's a bit of a drag, (pun intended), to have to step outside for a gasper, but it's certainly cut down on the number I partake in each day.

BOFH
18th Feb 2006, 17:14
Sailor Vee,

the spelling taunt was a cheap shot and I withdraw it. There are plenty of people who have no excuse for poor spelling other than lack of attention to detail - it appears that yinsinmerite is not one of them, and I apologise.

On the other hand, ill-thought out comments such as
Smokers are addicts the same as those on heroin, crack or any other drug
and
Its just that smokers make money for PLC's
do make me wonder whether there has been any deep thought given to the issue at hand.

One thing is for sure - Johnny Carson is not getting any older!
BOFH

Mac the Knife
18th Feb 2006, 19:14
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF7C.htm

"Following the House of Commons vote on Tuesday, smoking in any enclosed public space in England will now be banned, adding to bans already announced for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That an activity enjoyed by millions of people, and tolerated by most others, will be outlawed illustrates the character of British political life today. Bereft of any vision for the future, politics is increasingly devoted to regulating our lives in minute detail."

and http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF7D.htm

Mac (who likes unfiltered cigarettes, straight Scotch, bareback sex, old Landys, open cockpits and plain speaking)

airship
18th Feb 2006, 19:18
Mac (a 'clear and present danger' to modern society...) :uhoh: ;)

yintsinmerite
18th Feb 2006, 19:24
"The spelling taunt was a cheap shot and I withdraw it."

Accepted

BOFH,

Smokers are addicts the same as those on heroin, crack or any other drug
and

Its just that smokers make money for PLC's


so, exactly which of these would you like to say is not the truth???

<edited by yint who decided not to sink to the level of certain others !!>

daedalus
18th Feb 2006, 20:39
I don't smoke, except the occasional (monthly) cigar. I am not an addict. I have nothing against those who do - but NOT IN MY SPACE.
I go to a circular bar in a supermarket mall which sells food and drink. I get my food and drink and within minutes a pillock stands next to me and lights up. I move (why the hell should I move?), but I do, to the other side of the bar and another pillock comes and lights up next to me.
One side of the bar (where the food is) could be declared non-smoking and the other side "smokers welcome", but it aint. Result of this and other similar foolishness (or lack of common sense), a complete ban will come in soon. (In Luxembourg).
If only smokers had behaved with a modicum of respect for non-smokers (especially in food areas) and if only those responsible had introduced simple measures, such extreme measures as are now being introduced would not be necessary.:sad:

BOFH
19th Feb 2006, 14:29
yintsinmerite
Thank you for your acceptance. I have to admit having been quite piqued by the unusal capitalisation used by a previous interlocutor. So, gloves off again?

Smokers are addicts the same as those on heroin, crack or any other drug

Have you had things nicked by a smoker desperate for tabs? When was the last time someone smoked 60 in a row and glassed someone?

Its just that smokers make money for PLC's
How much does a packet of cigarettes cost? Do you have any idea how much excise is paid on them? Smokers make money primarily for the government, dear chap.

And since when is a PLC making money a bad thing? Does anyone like mass redundancies apart from you?

Look, I can understand the genuine need to provide areas which are isolated from smokers, as so many people are sensitive to it. I'd like to think that many smokers feel the same way. What I cannot abide is that any smoking indoors will be verboten, even if the express purpose of the area is for people who carry out a perfectly legal activity, and those who choose to be with them.

BOFH

yintsinmerite
19th Feb 2006, 19:28
BOFH. I am very sensitive about spelling on account of the fact that I am dyslexic, and for the most part, those not similarly blessed do not understand the problems it causes. Having said that, I have never allowed it to prevent me doing what I want academically although that may be because I am an stubborn SOB !!

Anyway to your points.

No I have never had anything nicked by someone desperate for tabs. I have however seen people who have chemical addictions and they include those with the smoking problem. In fact, because smoking has traditionally been acceptable, those nicotine heads face a far harder job in giving it up.

Yes I know how much tabs cost and the percentage which is excise so, again what is the issue? I stated that they make money for plc's which is the truth (in 2004 BAT had revenues around 60bn).

There is nothing wrong with anyone making money, and your suggestion that I am in favour of mass redundancies does you no justice at all (old chap :ok: )

"What I cannot abide is that any smoking indoors will be verboten, even if the express purpose of the area is for people who carry out a perfectly legal activity, and those who choose to be with them."

I cannot disagree one bit but too many smokers deem it their god given right to smoke when and where they want to and to hell with those who don't want poilluted air. Last evening, I was in my local no smoking pub and a guy lit up. He was asked to put it out and got nasty about his 'rights' being infringed, despite signs saying no smoking being displayed all around him . He was escorted from the pub by locals who like the no smoking environment. What do we do about people like him ???

con-pilot
19th Feb 2006, 20:00
What do we do about people like him ???

Yints, sadly there are pratts (jerks, whatever you would like to call them) on both sides of the smoking issue.

My wife and I a few years ago were in Puerto Valarta, Mexico at a 5 star hotel. This hotel had a very large lobby bar open to the outside on the ocean side of the lobby. The bar was spit in half, one side smoking the other side non-smoking. In the afternoon there is a strong sea breeze coming in from the sea, as it does every afternoon.

My wife and I were seated near the middle of the bar with spaces open on either side, the breeze was coming from our right to the left. This woman comes walking up and stands next to my wife, on my wife's left side. At this point my wife does not realize that there is someone next to her, my wife lights a cigarette.

This woman next to my wife goes ballistic, she starts screaming at my wife on how dare she smokes in front of her. This woman keeps yelling and screaming that my wife is blowing smoke into her face (remember the wind direction) and she wants the management to throw my wife and I out of the hotel.

The bar manager comes over and explains that the non-smoking bar is on the other side of partition and that he will escort her to that side and purchase her a drink of her choice.

She replied that she didn't want to sit over on that side because there was nobody there except the wait staff. At that point the manager asked a couple sitting at the very end of the bar, ocean side, if they would move over next to us so this woman could sit where the smoke would not effect her. They had no problem with that, and in fact we became friends with them.

So, what do we do with people like her?

RaraAvis
19th Feb 2006, 22:26
Just to add to this everlasting controversy, take a look...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4716208.stm

Risk-takers 'escape Parkinson's'

The study links low risk taking behaviour to Parkinson's disease
People who take more risks with their health - including smoking and
drinking - are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease, a study
suggests.
The human body, we all have one and yet we know zilch about how it actually works...:hmm:
Another perpetual 'chicken-egg' game... Mousy personality and Parkinson's, is it the cause, is it the result or is it a non sequitur altogether.
And where do we stick the smoking-drinking-risk taking types....:confused:

Say again s l o w l y
20th Feb 2006, 08:19
The study talks about low risk. Smoking does not fall into that category.
Smoking is high risk as you have a very high probability of carking it due to smoke related problems. Cancer, emphesema(sp?), Heart attacks etc. etc.

Smoking isn't the glamourous devil may care activity that ad agencies have made it up to be. How many of the "Marlboro men" have died of cancer? (I think it's virtually all of them.)

Burnt Fishtrousers
20th Feb 2006, 13:23
As an occasional cigar with pint man (less occasional as far as pints are concerned)I would have thought the the great British Public house would have been the last bastion where you can enjoy a smoke in a well ventilated area or area set aside for smokers. Surely if the landlord owns the property it is he/she who is inviting anyone they desired into their home to imbibe and can enforce whatever rule they see fit?...
It appears some people in government think smoke permiates against the direction of the air or that someone passing through this area for a few seconds on their way to the toilet , will actually drop dead from Cancer. I would have thought a sensible pragmatic attitude would have prevailed but this decision for a total ban reinforces my opinion that this lot are a load of fascist control freeks. When everyone gives up where are the extra taxes going to come from? Does that mean as we will no longer be treating smoking related diseases at vast expense to the health service, that women will be able to get Herceptin free of charge....somehow I think not...
Its about freedom of choice and providing an area for someone who wishes to smoke to do so without inconveniencing others
Pubs should be clearly marked as a smoker..if you dont like it then dont enter.
These same people that complain incessantly about smoking probably drive diesels or MOT failiures and pollute us all everytime they venture out....

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Feb 2006, 15:21
Pubs should be clearly marked as a smoker..if you dont like it then dont enter.
These same people that complain incessantly about smoking probably drive diesels or MOT failiures and pollute us all everytime they venture out....

Even if they do, they don't take them into the pub with them and run the engines all evening filling the place with diesel fumes.

When are the whinging smokers on here going to realise it's them that are the problem, not the non-smokers? Rather than the non-smokers being denied by the smokers an evening in the pub or an enjoyable restaurant meal, now the smokers will have to choose between the weed or a night out.:ok:

BenThere
20th Feb 2006, 15:52
No, Shaggy, Burnt has it right.

Some non-smokers are part of a different problem.

Why shouldn't I be able to open "BenThere's Smoking Pub"? You can go elsewhere. What makes it any of your business?

phnuff
20th Feb 2006, 16:35
Benthere

I think SSD has it right. Smokers and their attitudes mean that only a total ban has any chance of success. There are quite a lot of pubs around that are 'no smoking at the bar' however smokers continue to come to the bar with lighted cigarettes. A total ban is the only way to make sure that clean air exists for those who want it.

I was speaking my sister a few weeks ago. She and her husband went out for a meal a couple of weeks before. At the table next to them was a guy who finished his meal while they were still eating. Despite being in a no smoking area, he just got out the fags and lit up. When asked to put it out by the waiter, he refused and began to cause a scene.

As far as I am concerned, bring on the ban !!!!!!

Send Clowns
20th Feb 2006, 16:37
419

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that a company is run for the purpose of providing employment. It is not. It is run in order to make money; to do this it supplies the needs of a market. Therefore the purpose is to serve customers and thereby be given money, hopefully to excede expenditutre. In order to serve the needs of customers people are employed, but the company is not set up for their benefit! If the company's needs do not fit in with employing that person (in this case someone who wishes to avoid a smokey environment), then that person should not be employed.

Shaggy

Where did you get the impression that those arguing against the laws are smokers? I think it is a foul habit, last time I tried even a single puff (of a turkish-style pipe, as it happens, when I was very, very drunk) it made me ill. However I do not see why people should not be allowed to set up a private club and carrying out any legal pursuit.

Don't you think that ministers sound disgustingly self-righteous when they say in bewildered concern that trying to build a sheltering roof for smokers will not be allowed, as if this was a shocking attempt to break some god-given rules instead of adding a little comfort for those affected by a human law? That is the attitude makes me despise the person giving that opinion.

con-pilot
20th Feb 2006, 16:39
"BenThere's Smoking Pub"

Count me in Ben!:ok: I'll have a pint or two with you.

On March 1st the new anti-smoking law comes into effect in Oklahoma. In regards to restaurants and bars the operators of said establishments have been given the following options.

1. Totally non-smoking.
2. Smoking and non-smoking areas, the smoking areas must be completely sealed off from the non-smoking areas with separate entrances and stand alone separate air system.
3. Totally smoking. If a restaurant or club (Pub) is totally smoking all employees must either be smokers or sign a statement that they understand the risks of second hand smoke. (This option comes into effect next year.)

As it stands now 60% have taken option 1, 35% option 2 and 5% option 3.

(These stats is only for the two major cities in Oklahoma, Tulsa and Oklahoma City. In smaller towns in Oklahoma they will not change anything, especially in the small town bars.)

BenThere
20th Feb 2006, 18:32
Con-

I remember Norman, Oklahoma ca. 1974, and a place called 'The Onion' at the end of Lindsay St. off I-35. Went in there and was told I had to pay $5 to join, then go somewhere else to by my own liquor to bring in for them to make my drinks. I then paid full drink prices for drinks made with my own Johnny Walker Red. However, I was allowed to smoke to my heart's content without interference.

I sympathize with non-smokers who don't want to be exhaled upon. For the same reason, I've never supported farting in elevators. Rude behavior is not exclusive to smokers or nonsmokers and I'm not defending it, nor am I revealing whether I'm a current smoker.

My whole point is that the freedom to open an establishment where smokers can smoke if they choose should not be infringed. Neither should be the freedom to operate an establishment where smoking is banned.

SyllogismCheck
20th Feb 2006, 18:49
Even as an ex-smoker who won't be affected, c-p, I've already tried to have this one out in favour of the smoker.

Curiously, the objector, who was demanding his rights to go into any bar he wanted and not breathe other peoples smoke, ceased to comment when I asked him why he'd want to frequent places, even those in the minority as your 5% suggests they would be, partonised by [my paraphrasing of his words] 'stupid, mentally stunted, disrespectful smokers creating an environment he'd desipse and whom he would in turn depsise for doing so' when he can just as easily go somewhere smoke free and patronised by people he may not loathe so intently. I can only assume he couldn't think of a good reason. :rolleyes:

Simple, really, you'd think. If I don't want to go ice skating, why would I go to an ice rink?

Is it plain bloody mindedness or a some bizarre fear of missing out that provokes such 'must have cake and eat it' attitudes?

con-pilot
20th Feb 2006, 19:18
Ben, modern civilization rudely intruded into ultra conservative life style (meaning Baptist) of Oklahoma back in the late 1970s when enough non-Baptist joined up to pass 'liquor by the drink' (county option). (The old law was termed 'Liquor by the WINK';) )

Now to the shock an horror of the Baptists we now have Casinos (on Indian Land), betting at the horse race tracts and now even the lottery.

By the way, can people still smoke in bars and restaurants in California if the property is on Indian Land? I stayed at a Indian Hotel/Casino in Palm Springs a few years ago that allowed people smoked in the bar and the restaurant, can't remember the name now, but it is downtown Palm Springs.

Oh yeah, the Onion is still there.

BenThere
20th Feb 2006, 19:48
As far as I know in California even the Indian casinos and establishments are subject to California smoking laws. However, there are many bars, especially in the rural reaches like Gold Country, that choose to flaunt the law and pay the fine if caught. When the heat arrives, they hide the ashtrays.

BOFH
20th Feb 2006, 20:20
yintsinmerite
off topic,
I am very sensitive about spelling on account of the fact that I am dyslexic

and rightly so. In my dotage I find it increasingly difficult to read fine print under poor light (easy at this time of year). So concerned was I that I took an eye test and it was flabbergastingly frustrating to see images which I could not recognise - not knowing whether they were playing with me or not. To live without the ready recognition of what for the most of us take for granted to be the bleeding obvious cannot be easy.

However, let's get back on topic and take our gloves off again...
I have however seen people who have chemical addictions and they include those with the smoking problem.
So you wish to suppress middle-aged, middle-class, law-abiding citizens because?

Yes I know how much tabs cost and the percentage which is excise so, again what is the issue? I stated that they make money for plc's which is the truth (in 2004 BAT had revenues around 60bn).

So what? They operate in more than 100 countries. It is too late for me to dig out thier UK revenue - but the Exchequer gets 9,500,000,000 pounds per annum from cigarette excise. I think that the non-smokers should make up the shortfall when people give up ;-)

There is nothing wrong with anyone making money
Then why did you raise this as an issue?

(Anecdote about someone lighting up where he shoudn't have)
What do we do about people like him ???
Have him ejected, in the same way you'd have anyone who broke any other rule ejected. What bearing has what goes in in your pub have on my life?

BOFH

419
20th Feb 2006, 20:36
People keep coming out with the same arguments, such as,
If the company's needs do not fit in with employing that person (in this case someone who wishes to avoid a smokey environment), then that person should not be employed.

Whilst totally ignoring my point about health and safety.
So, Send Clowns, are you saying that the companys needs must take precedence over the well being of its employees and customers? If that is the case, as it certainly sounds like, I seriously hope that you are not in the position of employing people.
We are talking about something that is known to cause harm to those who partake of it, and also those who are in the same area as the smokers.

RaraAvis
21st Feb 2006, 07:24
Employment nowadays (we're not discussing here the third world child labour nor actual slavery that sadly still exists in some parts of the world) is not a slavery and no-one is forced to accept a job they do not like for whatever reasons, be it harmful working environment or else.

It comes down to individual choice, bar staff is not held at gun point when serving you drinks at the smokey bar, they do so because they chose to work there and accept the consequences the second hand smoke may have on their health.

Solid Rust Twotter
21st Feb 2006, 07:31
...Or they may need the job and have no option but to accept less than ideal conditions that may later affect their health.

eal401
21st Feb 2006, 07:34
As others point out, the fault for this ban largely lies with the smokers themselves. Many smokers respect the words "non-smoking" yet others (as seen in a few posts here) are of the "I do what I want, where I want, when I want" brigade. The smokers in the former group upset by the ban - blame those in the second group.

Personally, as a non-smoker, I'd have been quite happy for a selection of establishments/non-smoking areas/ventilation etc. But ultimately it makes no difference!

RaraAvis
21st Feb 2006, 07:46
..Or they may need the job and have no option but to accept less than ideal conditions that may later affect their health. ...McDonalds is always hiring...:hmm:

419
21st Feb 2006, 07:51
It comes down to individual choice, bar staff is not held at gun point when serving you drinks at the smokey bar

And pilots do not have a gun held at their head, so if an employer told them they would have to work for 18 hours at at a time or resign, thats okay?

Or if a company who employeed steeplejacks, said that were no longer supplying safety harnesses, and if the workers didn't like it, hard luck, they could always leave.

and no-one is forced to accept a job they do not like for whatever reasons, be it harmful working environment or else.

In that case, why not safe the country millions of pounds each year, and do away with the health and safety executive. After all, no one forces people to take dangerous jobs.

RaraAvis
21st Feb 2006, 08:04
You're quite correct there, no one forces people to take jobs they consider dangerous...:hmm:

Bar staff is well aware, before applying for a job in a smokey bar, that the place of their employment will indeed be smokey, it will not come as a sudden change in the company policy/working conditions as in your steeplejack example, there's a difference, no?

419
21st Feb 2006, 09:17
Things change as new facts become known.
20 years ago, some people didn't like being near a smoker because they ended up smelling of smoke.
Now, they don't like being near smokers because of the health risks of passive smoking.

Bar staff is well aware, before applying for a job in a smokey bar, that the place of their employment will indeed be smokey

That doesn't matter. As I keep saying, if a company places its staff in a position where their health is put in danger, without employing suitable safeguards they are breaking the law, and the dangers of passive smoking are now well known.

Melliandra
21st Feb 2006, 09:31
One of the problems with pubs being smokey is that the landlords aren't actually obeying the Building Standards laws applicable to their building. There should be a higher rate of air movement where smoking takes place... (any one been in the smoking areas in Dubai International? There's no smoke about because they're moving it quick enough) It's something like 8m/s^2 but I can't really be bothered to find the literature. But this law came in years ago and no one obeyed it because it costs too much to implement. It's far easier just to ban smokers in the first place.

Right now the smoking ban is going to be good for me... gave up the other day, on patches, and sitting next to someone smoking in a pub really makes me itch. But hey, I still think it's an infringement on people's liberties. Bring on the Nanny state!

effortless
21st Feb 2006, 09:50
To reiterate, the new law is about health and safety at work. I am professionaly involved in public health but health and safety at work comes within my remit. I have heard an employer state, as people on this forum have, that if they don't want to work in this environment then they don't have to. They have the choice. Well next time I have to bear witness at one of your coronial hearings I will remember this. Sure his employer was negligent but, hey he didn't have to work there did he.

SyllogismCheck
21st Feb 2006, 10:03
Are you saying then, 419, that if someone wants a job in, let's say, the House of Commons bar where smoking will remain permitted after the ban, and that this particular someone knowingly and wilfully accepts that the environment will be smokey, even perhaps that said person is a smoker themself and does not object on any level to exposure to that environment that they should still be denied that option by law? That the fact that such a position, short of them wearing respiratory equipment, will expose them to that environment in any degree should mean it is not allowed to exist?

Don't you think that's taking things just a little too far? Wouldn't it be yet another restriction on that persons liberty to do as they wish?

Let me put it another way. If it came to be, in the future, that all pilots, upon accepting employment, were required to sign a clause stating that they had been made aware of and accepted the health risks associated with exposure to high altitude solar radiation, would you say it was fair to allow them, at their discretion to accept those risks with, having signed it away, no later option of recourse to compensatory claim, or should they simply be denied the option of taking the position out of hand on the basis of the existence of those risks?

The latter is, in essence, what you are arguing for. You can, of course, trot out the 'inflicted' hazardous factors versus 'naturally' hazardous factors line, but that's not what I'm getting at. The crux of my question is should all of us be denied the liberty to do as we desire and in posession of full knowledge of the associated risks, in a professional capacity or not, simply because related risks exist?

Personally, I'd rather not be led by the hand through life in such a manner. I like to think I can do the thinking for myself, make my own judgements and either accept or reject the risks as suits me. It's perfectly legal to employ people to remove asbestos provided they are supplied with the correct PPE and clean up equipment which should make the procedure risk free to the operative. Would I do that job? No, on the basis of the increased chance of exposure alone, I would not. My choice, however, should not deny others their own.

419
21st Feb 2006, 10:25
but S.C, it doesn't matter one iota whether or not the employee knows about, and accepts the risks.
The employer has a duty of care towards their employees and customers, and any injury or health problem occuring is still their responsibility.
The Health & Safety at Work act 1974 places a general duty on employers "to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of his employees." This duty of care also covers persons who are not employees but might be affected by the workplace.
Passive smoking is now a known risk, therefore, by law, employers have to take steps to prevent it from affecting people.
If bar owners had fitted satisfactory extraction systems years ago, this change probably wouldn't have been required.

By the way, I totally agree that the ban not being enforced in the House of commons bar is totally ludicrous

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 10:46
419

What I am saying is that if smoking is legal, then people should be allowed to do it as long as they are not forcing it on non-smokers. I cannot see why allowing smoking in private space where people are not forced to go for any should not be allowed. This should of course be made clear in the employment terms. A bar is completely different from another workplace because smoking is, for some people, part of the leisure experience that is the purpose of the bar. Why should they not be allowed their leisure, away from you, because of your opinion? Is that not supremely arrogant of you, insisting others should live by your rules?

It is ridiculous to suggest I don't care about health and safety, when that is my primary responsibility in my job and which I take very seriously, and a disgracefully dishonest argument to suggest so or that I should not be employing people. It suggests only that you are incapable of actually understanding the fairly simple concepts I am explaining.

419
21st Feb 2006, 11:10
Is that not supremely arrogant of you, insisting others should live by your rules?

Not my rules. Rules brought in by a democratically elected Government.
It is ridiculous to suggest I don't care about health and safety, when that is my primary responsibility in my job and which I take very seriously
So, why are you saying below that if someone does not wish to work in an unhealthy atmosphere, he should not be employed, and not that if they don't want to work in an unhealthy atmosphere, improvements should be made.?
If the company's needs do not fit in with employing that person (in this case someone who wishes to avoid a smokey environment), then that person should not be employed.

SyllogismCheck
21st Feb 2006, 11:23
419, That's pretty hard to argue with since I'm both aware of, and agree with, the duty of care ethic.

However, I'm driving at the underlying controlling, nannying aspect. The denial of choice. If I want to work in a bar, consider that controls such as the prevention of smoking in the immediate vicinity of the bar and an environmental control system, however meagre in its effectiveness, are utterly irrelevant, let alone adequate to me personally since I don't care for their protection of my health due, let's say, to my being a 100 a day smoker anyway, then let me get on with it. It's an environmental factor of the job just as exposure to the dangers of the sea is to fishermen and oil rig divers, hazards of UV radiation and toxic gasses are to welders and, ultimately, my choice to accept or reject. If the sea chills me to the bone or the gasses make my eyes water and I simply don't like it, in spite of the provision and application of reasonable preventative measures, then I have an option.

Duty of care in terms of health and safety is, obviously, required. It prevents, by law, unscrupulous employers demanding that their employees are needlessly exposed to dangers. That, to my mind, however is rather different to allowing someone the choice to work in a a smokers bar bar where they will, by nature of that location, be exposed to smoke or, similarly, in a cockpit where they may be exposed to cosmic radiation provided they are aware and accepting of the relevant risks.

We could go on in a circular fashion with this, but let's not. If smokers, or non-smokers for that matter, accept working in smokey a environment I just don't consider it anyones business to deny them the freedom to do so. A final, loose comaprison however.

To apply the 'avoidability' angle, which is admittely valid in the case of smoking since it's not an essential, unavoidable factor, it's rather like saying I can't go motor racing because it's not essential I do so, the risks I take when doing so are entirely avoidable, hedonistic even, and therefore it must, by law, be prevented regardless of my acceptance of those risks. Ok, so you could consider that rather like smoking in private I suppose, but what about those I share the circuit with? Must this enjoyable pursuit be outlawed because other accepting individuals may be placed at risk by their proximity to my indulgence in it, even though they're also participants in the very same pursuit? No. Reasonable safety measures are put in place. If I or anyone decides those measures are insufficient in that they leave us feeling at risk we may excercise our option not to expose ourselves.

Again, I stress that I'm aware of the H&S requirements. I simply don't think that the way you chose to promote them is entirely relevant in this case. That being in a manner which tends toward using them to impinge upon reasonable chioce of the individual as opposed to their primary function which is to prevent blatant, forced denial of an individual's right to safety. The two are quite different, wouldn't you say?

RaraAvis
21st Feb 2006, 11:25
419,

There are multitude of hazardous jobs out there, where does the employers liability end?
If a person chooses to work in the hazardous environment, if he/she knowingly accepts the risks involved, where do you draw the line?

419
21st Feb 2006, 11:31
We could go on in a circular fashion with this, but let's not. If smokers, or non-smokers for that matter, accept working in smokey a environment I just don't consider it anyones business to deny them the freedom to do so

Fair enough, We'll agree to disagree.

There are multitude of hazardous jobs out there, where does the employers liability end?
To paraphrase the H&S act again, their liability ends as soon as they have taken "reasonable practicable" steps to ensure the health of their employees and customers.

under_exposed
21st Feb 2006, 11:40
Some people become violent when they consume alcohol. To reduce the risk to bar staff should we ban alcohol from pubs?

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 12:05
Errrm, you are not a democratically-elected government 419! I was talking about your demand that people live by rules you want, not about the law.

If the unhealthy environment is a part of the requirement of the job being succesfully completed then someone who doesn't wish to work in that environment should not be employed. Would you force me not to fly single-crew in a piston-engined aircraft? That is relatively more dangerous than flying with another pilot in a turbine-engined aircraft, but it is a requirement to keep us competitve. Would you ban people from accepting work diving deeply? Most such divers must stop work in their early 30s, due to the hazards of the work, but that is part of the job and the choice of the emplyee to risk. Should oil companies be forced to employ divers who won't dive deeper than 200 feet?

effortless
21st Feb 2006, 12:20
The Health & Safety at Work act 1974 places a general duty on employers "to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of his employees." This duty of care also covers persons who are not employees but might be affected by the workplace.

The 1974 act puts the onus on employers and employees equally. If you see an unsafe practice, it is your duty to do something about it. The implications for smokers are real.

phnuff
21st Feb 2006, 12:20
This thread could go on forever (and even beat Drapes useless info one), but the fact is smoking is going to be banned in pubs and it would be a brave government that tried to reverse it. Face facts guys, we will soon be able to smell f*rts in pubs (and I reckon that is preferable to cigarettes) and all you people who have always wanted to give up but found it hard when having a beer stand a chance of success !!!:}

419
21st Feb 2006, 12:32
Errrm, you are not a democratically-elected government 419! I was talking about your demand that people live by rules you want, not about the law.


Show me where I "demanded that people live by my rules"

I will state it again, as you dont seem to want to believe it, or understand it.They are not my rules. They are the rules of the country. All I am asking for, is that people obey those rules.

And why no response to the following?

So, why are you saying below that if someone does not wish to work in an unhealthy atmosphere, he should not be employed, and not that if they don't want to work in an unhealthy atmosphere, improvements should be made.?

Quote:
If the company's needs do not fit in with employing that person (in this case someone who wishes to avoid a smokey environment), then that person should not be employed.

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 13:26
They are the rules you wish people to live by. That is what I am arguing about. If I were arguing in front of the government then I would argue in a different way. I am not - I am discussing your opinion, or are you unwilling to take responsibility for your own views? Do you abdicate to the government?

I did answer that. Read my last few posts, and you will see that it has been comprehensively addressed. I stand by the quote, in respect of a private club.

419
21st Feb 2006, 16:37
Send clowns,
Yes, they are my views, but they are also the governments views.
I think this is a topic that we also will have to agree to disagree on.

It appears we both have strong feelings towards this smoking ban, and to continue our debate will just involve both of us going around in circles..

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 17:16
But you still have not explained why you think everyone should live by your rules, or even attempted to do so. It is irrelevant that the government agrees, I am challenging you to justify your argument. I would do the same to them, given the opportunity. If you accepted responsibility for your opinion then it would break the circle, and we could have a serious debate.

I don't think it is a case of simply disagreeing; I am perfectly willing to allow people to drink in smoke-free environment, in fact never having smoked a single cigarette in my life I would prefer to do so myself. I would support legislation designed to speed up the spread of smoke-free leisure environments. Therefore I don't disagree with your personal preference, and I don't have any dispute with what you want. I just don't see how you can claim that other people should be forced join you, and you have not addressed that issue.

419
21st Feb 2006, 17:36
Send Clowns, You wrote:
But you still have not explained why you think everyone should live by your rules, or even attempted to do so.
To which I earlier asked you to point me to my post where I expressed my "demand that people live by rules you want"

Neither of can possibly prove our argument one way or the other, as they are personal opinions. My opinion is that smoking should be banned in all public places, which is all I have stated all along.

[QUOTE]I just don't see how you can claim that other people should be forced join you, and you have not addressed that issue.[QUOTE]

Again, you are writing something that I never said.
The majority of the UK are now non smokers, so why should they be forced to inhale other people's secondhand smoke.
And before you say that the majority of bar users are smokers, that's because a lot of non smokers won't go there because of the smell.

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 17:43
My opinion is that smoking should be banned in all public places, which is all I have stated all alongBut you also said the same about private clubs, which is surely that is a demand that people live by your rules, and taken alongside the demand for smoke free public places that is a demnad that everyone else must join you in takling their leisure in a smoke-free environment. So you have said those things. Why can there not be areas where people can meet together to drink and smoke? I agree that there should be far more areas to meet, drink, eat and take leisure without smoke, but I completely fail to see why everyone should be forced into smoke-free congregation, unless you propose to ban tobacco!

RaraAvis
21st Feb 2006, 17:44
So, why are you saying below that if someone does not wish to work in an unhealthy atmosphere, he should not be employed, and not that if they don't want to work in an unhealthy atmosphere, improvements should be made.?
419, I believe the issue has been the personal, free and informed choice to accept the risk that working in somewhat hazardous conditions involves.

From your argument it follows that if somebody wanted to become a fireman for example, but didn't want to put their person in any hazardous situation, they should still be employed just because they so wish, regardless of the obvious element of danger the job entails? :confused:

BenThere
21st Feb 2006, 17:57
The majority of the UK are now non smoker, so why should they be forced to inhale other people's secondhand smoke.
Why should anyone be forced to do anything? Possibly because their actions can, and do harm others.

I'm starting to tune in to your logic, 419. We may be on to a concensus to cure society's ills. Under your regime we could:

Ban Islam - no more ugly protests and bombings

Ban homosexuality - eliminate AIDS
Ban alcohol - no more tragic highway accidents or alcohol-related domestic violence
Ban meateating - no more cruelty to animals
Ban automobiles - an end to global warming
Ban pornography - end child abuse and exploitation of women
Ban hunting and privately held weapons - an end to violence
Ban manufacturing - stop polution
Ban everything - a perfect world!

419
21st Feb 2006, 18:17
Ban Islam - no more ugly protests and bombings

Are you implying that all followers of Islam are potential bombers or demonstrators?
It's only a tiny minority.
Ban homosexuality - eliminate AIDS
There are plenty of hetrosexuals with aids.
Ban alcohol - no more tragic highway accidents or alcohol-related domestic violence

Alcohol, when taken in moderation will not affect me or people near to the drinker.
Ban meateating - no more cruelty to animals
Not all animals reared for meat are kept in cruel conditions, and what about hunting and poaching. There would still be cruelity involved.
Ban automobiles - an end to global warming
What is the % of global warming caused by vehicles, as opposed to industry?.
Apart from this being totally impossible to do.
Ban pornography - end child abuse and exploitation of women

So, everyone who looks at porn is a potential paedophile are they?
Ban hunting and privately held weapons - an end to violence
And cricket bats, pool cues etc? Also, humans don't need weapons to be violent.
Ban manufacturing - stop polution
Another stupid impossibility
Ban smoking in public places
Totally workable, as has been proven in quite a few countries.

airship
21st Feb 2006, 18:55
I get the impression that yer average smoker could easily afford to buy a Ferrari with what he spends on ciggies.

So, my solution to the problem is that governments immediately:

1) Ban smoking in Ferraris.
2) Remove all the punitive taxes on tobacco so that smokers will have to give up smoking just as soon as they get hold of their Ferraris.

:rolleyes:

BOFH
21st Feb 2006, 22:14
419

I do not wish to gang up on you. Ben There has thrown some straw men in your direction, as you threw a straw man in ours - that is to say the libertarians - and that solves nothing.
>end of message to 419, as it gets vituperative, and it is not directed at him>

Our Wonderful, Smoke- and Freedom-free World

Vignette 0:
Job seeker: I'd like a job please.
Pub owner: This is a smoking pub - you know that?
Job seeker: No problem, I love tabs, me.
VERBOTEN - TABAKPOLIZEI <whoop><whoop>
Police helping the community unless you are a Brazilian electrician or elderly Christian radio: We have a Dunhill in Ken High St
<crackle> High tar?
<crackle> could be an untipped, better get SO19 and scramble Fairford
Householder: Hello, I think there is an intruder in my house and..
Police helping the community unless you are a Brazilian electrician or elderly Christian: Shut it! We are dealing with an untipped! Please hold while the next officer not dealing with nicotine crimes can answer your call.

Vignette 1:
Pretty Job seeker: I'd like a job please.
Pub owner: This is a smoking pub - you know that?
Pretty Job seeker: Ooh, that's awful. People smoke in pubs?
Pub owner: Until 2007, yes. Mind you, people get glassed, there are fights, drunken people trying to grope you, ogling you, stalking you...
Pretty Job seeker: No smoking, though - fine!

Vignette 2:
Job seeker: I'd like a job please.
Pub owner: This is a smoking pub - you know that? You have to be a smoker.
Job seeker: Ooh, that's awful. People smoke in pubs? Hewp, hewp, I'm being deswriminated against!
Police client service manager: Allo allo allo Mr Pub Owner you are clearly a bigot because you are a smoker
Pub owner: It's a fair cop
Police client service manager: And a racist!

Vignette 3:
Job seeker: I'd like a job please.
Lap-dancing club owner: Awight, you haveta do a dance and get your gear off. Easy.
Job seeker: Bu..bu.. I'm a librarian!
Lap-dancing club owner: Well, I must not impinge upon your rights. Welcome aboard. You may organise the filthy magazines using the Dewey system.

The reason why so many non-smokers have jumped on this anti-anti-smoking bandwagon (and I include myself, although I am now back on them) isn't because we want rights as smokers so much as we don't like the sanctimonious types around us. Congregating thus, we are free of the exaggerated hand-waving manouevre, the Kenneth-Williams-style sniff. The always-looking-around-for-prefects types.

Well, you'll be the library monitors next year, and in the years to come. In the meantime, I hope you'll get back to us with how much you've been protesting about smoking in the HoP and prisons. Why not organise a protest at Wormwood Scrubs, and explain, man to man, why giving up would be good for them? Thought not. Library monitors. Sir! Sir!

BOFH

Send Clowns
21st Feb 2006, 23:57
Ban smoking in public places
Totally workable, as has been proven in quite a few countries.That doesn't mean it is not illiberal! Do you agree that smoking should be allowed in private clubs that are not public places?

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 00:14
Do you not get member of public in private clubs??

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 00:25
Ah, you're back, FL69. Answer me this since you didn't before.

Why would you want to frequent places, even if they were in the minority of those available to you (as few as 5% of them remaining 'all smoking' has been suggested to be the case in areas where options were given) when they would be, partonised by [my paraphrasing of your words] 'stupid, mentally stunted, disrespectful smokers creating an environment you'd desipse and whom you'd would in turn depsise for doing so, when you can just as easily go somewhere smoke free and patronised by people you may not loathe so intently?

This is what you said previously in the sum of your posts. Just so as you can be sure you did actually state that you wanted to go to such despicable places, I'll remind you. You said, 'I personally dont want to avoid bars because the owners dont care two sh*ts about my wellbeing.' And that after you stating your opinions about smokers and your aversion to the environment they create, as paraphrased by above.
So come on, let's have it. Why the big obsession with being able to go everywhere, even places you don't want to go? Seems a little bloody minded to me

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 00:45
You really need to add punctuation to your posts. To make it simple, I wouldn't have to want to make a choice on a place to visit based on the potential of passive smoking. Do I not have the right to visit any where in the UK without being poisoned? Would you eat in a McDonalds with rats running around? No? why? Because you wouldn't want to suffer from a potential disease.

There's bloody mindedness, and pure ignorance.

Just to mention an article I read in a UK tabloid this week, a mother complained about the smoking ban in her local social club "I'd never dream of smoking around my kids, so I do so at the local social club". Very selfish. She won't subject her own flesh and blood to her smoke, but doesn't care a t*ss about her fellow neighbours. Very typical of a smokers attitude.

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 01:17
Whilst I'm under no illusion that it's perfect, what exactly was wrong with my punctuation? Oh, I see it. There's a missing comma after the close bracket and a rogue one after 'be'. Curses.

Anyway, back to the point. That is bloody mindedness. Perhaps you value your hearing. Going to motor racing circuits and suffering the high dB levels might damage it though. So, just for you, let's ban motor racing at a place specifically set aside for it just so you can go there shall we? That's what we're talking about; specifically set aside places for specific activities. Places aviodable by those who do not wish to partake or have the effects of those activities subjected on themselves. Perhaps you'd like to take up boxing, only without the punching since it might damage your faculties. Why shouldn't you be allowed? I see your point, and it's ridiculous.

Gosh, nit-picking over a couple of rogue commas, an inability to let others do as they wish just because you don't want to be a part of it but might, just might, decide you do. And you said I was a 'boring fella'. Sheesh!

Rats? I don't care if there are McDonalds with scurrying rats as an added feature. I won't stand outside with you bleating about the fact I want to eat there but don't like rats with my food. I'll go to the another just down the road, one of the 95%, without rats. Yes, yes I will. Quite happily too. Let the people eat with rats if they so wish. A lot of people like rats. You, I assume and as incredible as it is to imagine, wouldn't find that simple solution satisfactory and would be put out. I find the idea of such behaviour laughable.

Oh yes, one last thing. Anywhere is one word. :rolleyes:

Actually, I now see there are a few more errors in my previous post. Moslty as a result of cutting and pasting and not exclusively punctuation errors either. A (not so) fine example being 'you'd would'. Strange, however, to pick on one missing and one rogue comma in the punctuation in the face of more glaring errors. Errors which, unlike the punctuation (which to me seems about right and shall be duly analysed by my resident Eng. Lang. afficianado for no other reason than to satisfy my confusion as to where its apparent huge inaccuracies lie), do cause the post to be awkward to read. Just an observation. Interesting. :zzz:

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 01:46
Great example. Motor racing. I can view the races and wear ear protection quite happily, as many people do. Hearing is very resilient. Point is high DB levels at motor racing is inevitable, high performance vehicles make noise. However, public places do not have to contain poisonous smoke, and are not enhanced by having it.
I think you have failed to grasp any perspective to the debate. Smoking offers no real benefits for anyone, unless you count the relief from an evil addiction every drag of the 'ole nicotene.
Your Mcdonalds response, unbelievable! Shocking! You will put up with a places lack of health and hygiene because you can always move to the next eating establishment? I personally have higher standards and expect a minimum from any establishment I visit.

P.S., over sensetive over the punctuation? Wasn't a personal dig, just a request to make your arguements more reader friendly. :ok:

Spinflight
22nd Feb 2006, 02:09
Well FL69,
I smoke. That is I prefer pipes but smoke cigarettes at work (presently as a barman) and like cigars. I like smoking, I don't intend to give up. I consider that I get far more from smoking than smoking will take from me.

I used to be a non-smoker and have been an ex-smoker too. I have never complained; nor felt even the slightest need to, about smokey pubs, smelly clothes or even people smoking around me.

The current legislation is apparently in force to protect those innocent barmen who might die due to ETS. I am a barman, I have known a great many barmen and 90-95% of them smoke. Usually heavily.

You contest that a smokey atmosphere puts you in risk. I suggest you prove it. I've posted a wee challenge on another thread and you appear to be evangelical enough to take it up.

Ex-smokers appear to me to be the main problem here. I imagine, though I havn't sought to prove it, that a lot of MPs are ex smokers. Not good for the public image I would contend.

If 39% of the voting population smoke then why not allow 39% of pubs and clubs to allow smoking? That way reformed and antagonistic ex-smokers could mingle with non smokers in peace whilst us smoker could enjoy a pint and a smoke in peace, with consenting barmen of course.

I do believe that more bars and pubs should be non-smoking areas. Non smokers should have a goodly choice as their venue so as to enjoy themselves if smoking irks them so. However smokers should be allowed to enjoy themselves too and I, personally, could never vote for someone who themselves voted to take one of my joys of life away.

Hansard provides voting records for your local MPs. I suggest you vote with your feet and your ballot paper.

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 02:14
No, no, no. My McDonalds comments are not shocking. I simply used your scenario. McDonalds with pet type rats; some people might like it but it's not for me. Neither is it for me to bleat about it and say, "Hey you! Yes you rat lovers, you can't do that!" if there's a perfectly acceptable alternative, one exactly the same only without rats. I just don't go where the rats are if I don't like them.
You miss my simple point. I won't put up with anything beacuse I won't visit. You will visit then demand your standards in a place they lack. You fill yer boots there, I'll be a nice little place down the street enjoying real food rather than making demands in McDonalds for Rat Lovers.

I'll go to the alternative quite happily, you won't. You'll make an issue where there need not be one, I won't. End of. No further questions.

Actually, there is another, the last.

Would you prefer then, FL, that those theoretical 5% of smoking bars, places that would lay beyond your perceived right to go anywhere in the UK without being poisoned, were closed altogether than allowed to exist as smoking bars? Would that make you happy? If because you didn't want to go there, well, no one will? Would that be easier for you to swallow? Yes or no?

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 02:29
I consider that I get far more from smoking than smoking will take from me.

What can I say? Sorry? Do you want my pity?

I used to be a non-smoker and have been an ex-smoker too. I have never complained; nor felt even the slightest need to, about smokey pubs, smelly clothes or even people smoking around me.

Just because you have no respect for your body or your appearance doesn't mean I don't have the right to disrespect my own.

The current legislation is apparently in force to protect those innocent barmen who might die due to ETS. I am a barman, I have known a great many barmen and 90-95% of them smoke. Usually heavily.

And 100% of your customers deserve better, you do not have a right to poison them.

You contest that a smokey atmosphere puts you in risk. I suggest you prove it. I've posted a wee challenge on another thread and you appear to be evangelical enough to take it up.

Do you really need proof of the damage of this. Really?. Now engage your brain. RRRReally?

Ex-smokers appear to me to be the main problem here. I imagine, though I havn't sought to prove it, that a lot of MPs are ex smokers. Not good for the public image I would contend.

I'm really holding my sides in now. The fact that respected MP's have given up smoking is negative to anti-smoking campaigns? Care to expand?

If 39% of the voting population smoke then why not allow 39% of pubs and clubs to allow smoking? That way reformed and antagonistic ex-smokers could mingle with non smokers in peace whilst us smoker could enjoy a pint and a smoke in peace, with consenting barmen of course.

So if 39% of the voting public choose to undertake a public damaging activity, does it make it 39% right? If 10% of people commit crime, does that mean that 10% of people can commit crime in your pub?

I do believe that more bars and pubs should be non-smoking areas. Non smokers should have a goodly choice as their venue so as to enjoy themselves if smoking irks them so. However smokers should be allowed to enjoy themselves too and I, personally, could never vote for someone who themselves voted to take one of my joys of life away.

So what if your right to smoke, destroys someone elses right to smoke free air? What if I decide to jack up illegal drugs, as my right, and decide to steal out of your wallet to fund it?

Hansard provides voting records for your local MPs. I suggest you vote with your feet and your ballot paper.

And the goverment made a fantastic decision. The majority approve. And soon enough, when your body is ridden of the horrible addiction, and your health improves, so will you.

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 02:45
Come on, FL, I need to sleep. The question...

Would you prefer then, FL, that those theoretical 5% of smoking bars, places that would lay beyond your perceived right to go anywhere in the UK without being poisoned, were closed altogether than allowed to exist as smoking bars? Would that make you happy? If because you didn't want to go there, no one will?
Yes or no?

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 02:52
Come on, FL, I need to sleep. The question...

Would you prefer then, FL, that those theoretical 5% of smoking bars, places that would lay beyond your perceived right to go anywhere in the UK without being poisoned, were closed altogether than allowed to exist as smoking bars? Would that make you happy? If because you didn't want to go there, no one will?
Yes or no?

Depends how hot the chicks there were ;)

Spinflight
22nd Feb 2006, 02:52
Oh FL you're a hoot!

I'm guessing an ex-smoker who creaves a ciggie every day that he lives!

Well Naa naa ne naa naaa I'm enjoying a ciggie as I write this.

Do you really need proof of the damage of this. Really?. Now engage your brain. RRRReally?

Yep, go for it dude! Knock yourself out!

Post in on the epidemiologist thread if you don't mind. :)

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 02:56
No, I didn't think you'd actually come out and say 'Yes, they should be closed', FL.
It'd smack of something you've been denying wouldn't it? :hmm:

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 03:04
If you check my profile I'm 27. I stopped smoking at 17, after 6 months. Do I crave it? No. Did I ever? No. I'm not that weak. Though I did suffer a bit of peer pressure.

Oh I love your row that non smokers miss it or wish they were part of it. Sounds like a particular religion no one likes....

Enjoying a fag? Good for you, providing no one else is enjoying your fag with you, I really don't care how much you pump you body full of tar.

SyllogismCheck, didn't you detect the sarcasm? Hot chicks in some sad old smokey gentlemens club? Keep ma****ating! ;)

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 03:05
No, I failed to. It's late. So, answer the question.

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 03:19
No problem, I do think smoking should be banned in that 5%. Go home and smoke. People who frequent private clubs are not all smokers and do not all deserve the physical abuse their fellow frequent smokers place on them.

Why not tell me what I'm missing in your own words?

I'm already getting a lecture from a super intellect barman, why not join him?

RaraAvis
22nd Feb 2006, 08:04
Back to the employers liability versus personal choice/acceptance of certain health 'risk' factor...

The influence of work stress has been known to increase the likelihood of developing high blood pressure and heart disease which are factors for diabetes.

Now, what shall we do with the employer who 'provides' stressful working environment in form of impossible deadlines, hard to achieve quotas etc, etc...

Besides whinging about it that is....:rolleyes:

Or perhaps the person who finds a particular place of employment or type of job too stressful, perhaps that person should simply choose to work somewhere else where the stress level is lower? To protect their health...

Send Clowns
22nd Feb 2006, 09:50
FL69

You are arguing dishonestly. Do you not get member of public in private clubs??I cannot believe you are stupid. You would have to be not to know the definition of "public places". You imply that a private club is a public place just because members of the public go there. Well members of the public go to your house, assuming you have friends. Does that mean it is a public place? The whole point of calling it a private club is that it is not a public place.

So is your dishonest argument not simply an admission that you had no valid point to make, so had to try it on?

SyllogismCheck
22nd Feb 2006, 10:17
Before you mock others, as seems to be your want even when it's grossly unfounded and you err in similar fashion yourself, FL69. I suggest you consider the fact that you entirely failed to answer the simple question I asked.

My question was, 'Would you prefer then, FL, that those theoretical 5% of smoking bars, places that would lay beyond your perceived right to go anywhere in the UK without being poisoned, were closed altogether than allowed to exist as smoking bars?'

Your answer, 'I do think smoking should be banned in that 5%'.

Now, perhaps you can't see it, so I shall point it out. That is an answer to a different question.

Would you care to try again, this time answering the question asked?

strafer
22nd Feb 2006, 10:29
SyllogismCheck - Arguing your point at 04:19 this morning and still logged on now. Kudos :ok: