PDA

View Full Version : Dying Pubs?


Pages : [1] 2

tony draper
27th Jan 2009, 18:50
I live in a area that used to be Church land and there was some kind of proscription on pubs on this land so there was not a Pub on every corner as in other areas of Tyneside however withing reasonable walking distance there were four good Pubs, heard tonight that the last one has shut down,all these Pubs were over a hundred years old and had been selling ale and serving the community continuously all that time,don't frequent Pubs meself now but I had been told by those who do that they had been dying for a while and the smoking ban finally slammed the coffin lid on em,seems another part British traditional life is going the way of the Diplodocus.
:(

Parapunter
27th Jan 2009, 18:59
This is truly one that can be laid at the feet of the government, in part at least. It would have been far too complicated to legislate for at least one smoking bar to be retained, clearly. Pub co's in general and Punch Taverns in particular strangled their leaseholders, tieing them to long supply contracts that benefit only the pub co. Then there's our old friend the Supermarket, 500 cans of piss weak lager for a tenner anyone? Seems people agree.

All in all, it's a perfect storm

I don't go to the pub anymore either. The one at the end of our street is a Punch tavern and hasn't had a penny spent on it in years. landlord told me that punch make sure he is responsible for repair and maintenance but the terms of his contract mean that he barely makes a living wage, so the building is falling down.

Checkboard
27th Jan 2009, 19:09
Pubs were designed for your hard-working, smoking "working class" man.

Now machines do the work, smoking is banned, and the tax load means that buying from the off-licence is cheaper.

Unless the pub can re-brand to attract the people with disposable income (high income singles, Two-income no kids etc.) then they can't survive. Paint, good design (making the best of the oldest features) comfortable leather seats & good food.

Pubs have always been the British version of the "front room". You don't invite people to the house so much, you invite them down to the local pub. Now you've just got to make the local pub a "front room" everyone wants to be in.

Or tear it down and build another Barrett Box :{

tony draper
27th Jan 2009, 19:11
Yer stopped Pubulating meself quite a few years ago,all plastic loud music and blokes at the bar drinking out of the neck of bottles,not my scene at all.
Still tiz a shame,don't think this unlimited opening time has helped much either:(

Lon More
27th Jan 2009, 19:20
Had a local in Hawkinge, the White Horse, Free house. Miserable sod of a landlord (ex RAF Regiment) which was taken over, turned round, good meals, sponsored dart teams, pool, football etc. Bought out by brewery and tenants move in. Six months later, the pub is empty, no more food being done and all the games teams have folded. Brewery boots out tenants and starts again. Not everybody is cut out to run a pub

Parapunter
27th Jan 2009, 19:21
Five pubs closed in this town last December. Something like 150,000 people live here. I agree with this chasing the market thing. One of them that went wasn't a pub. Oh no, it was a bar. A bloody bar! Packed to the rafters Friday & Saturday night & deserted for the other five days.

You'd have thought the suits'd have sussed that one out by now. Still, don't see Tim Martin complaining, his dumps are always packed.

TerminalTrotter
27th Jan 2009, 19:25
My nearest Pub used to be a warren of rooms knocked together, all nooks and crannies, served good grub, full to bursting with all sorts of people every night. The brewery stripped it to the outside walls and rebuilt the insides twenty years ago. Place did Sod all business from then on, been "Rebranded" several times, now appears to be a drug exchange for dealers from Liverpool and Manchester. Bloody progress! TT

goudie
27th Jan 2009, 19:41
There are some good pubs near where I live in N.Herts. (and some crap ones) but my Pub only serves drink, no food. The beer is very well kept and the place, well over 250 years old, is spotless. With regard to the smoking ban the landlord banned smoking a year before the official ban and it made little if no difference to trade. It would seems though, that the Brewery, Green King, is forever racking up the rent etc. The other thing is that the Pub is well run, no drunken chavs etc., music kept low and has a loyal customer base.

ShyTorque
27th Jan 2009, 19:56
Had a conversation last week by someone in the know from his personal experience of trying to make a living as a pub landlord.

Apparently the common scenario is: Tenancy comes up. New landlord to be re-mortgages his own property, puts everything he has into his "new way of life". Brewery puts him in place but demands very high profit margin on all drinks and sometimes food sold, plus a high and ever increasing rent. Local council demand unrealistic and ever increasing rates. Landlord gets squeezed, brewery doesn't. Landlord makes little or no profit, ruins his life and often ruins his marriage due to business pressures.

No risk to brewery, their profit fixed by contract and assured. If not, old landlord loses everything, now bankrupted, kicked out, homeless.

Brewery moves in new tenant landlord....repeat as required.

Say again s l o w l y
27th Jan 2009, 20:13
In the little village my parents live in, there are numerous pubs. All are busier than busy things especially the "traditional" ones that just serve decent beer.

I know all the landlords and each one says that they are busier than they were before the smoking ban. A couple of pubs have gone by the wayside, but they were crap anyway and very few people used them before.

gingernut
27th Jan 2009, 21:20
I suspect that shy torue has diagnosed the current situation accurately.

Break's me' heart to see this bastion of Britishness being torn apart the way it is though. What's better than a game of darts, proper ale, a chat with the lads, a flirt through the beer goggles, and a night of passion with the Mrs, fuelled by Manchester Viagra. (Boddingtons Bitter:))

I guess times change though. The smoking ban was interesting, although I agree with it on health promotion grounds, I do find the pubs do lack that smoky atmosphere I must have found attractive at one time. Outsides of pubs appear more atractive than inside now.

My local charges about £2.70/pint, which for a working man that wants to slate his thirst, is a lot of money. My local Sainsbury's was selling bottles of Grolsch for 33p a bottle at Christmas. (You did have to buy 3 crates).-I've found a bit of a compromise, by joining the local Working club, proper, well kept and served real ale at £1.70 a pint. And proper no ponce company as well. The books are healthy I'm told.

Still, when The Railway (Heatley), has to shut, you know the situation's dire.


Good health, Ginge

TBirdFrank
27th Jan 2009, 21:50
The Buffet Bar at Stalybridge - still everything a good pub should be - Good Ale - Good Food - nooks and crannies - and the smokers can sit under a brolly and we can taste our food and ale and breathe while we chat.

And its just the same elsewhere along the line.

The pub trade is having it tough - but the good managers still show how it is done

gingernut
27th Jan 2009, 21:59
Hey T-Bird, thinking of doing the route after James and Oz made it public.

Believe Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury are worth a look. Any experience?? And are they all on the same line:confused:

Or is it time to join CAMRA?

Firestorm
27th Jan 2009, 22:46
I thought the title of the thread was dying pubEs, so I can't think why I looked at it! reckon that if the supermarkets didn't sell bevvy, and stuck to what they do best (Cornflakes and washing powder) the pubs, inns and hostelries of our fine land might have a chance.

chiglet
27th Jan 2009, 22:54
I really shouldn't say this....so I won't...
About the "Ghost Night" in a certain venue....
I wonder if Storminnorn is up for it?

22 Degree Halo
27th Jan 2009, 23:01
The Pub is Dead

Loose rivets
27th Jan 2009, 23:12
My pub was my second home. Sometimes I would finish a flight at LHR and try to decide if it would be The Three Magpies, one mile, or the Red Lion one-hundred and three miles. Given I'd got me old home to go to, it was nearly always down to the coast to the Lion.

Of late, I've limited my night pubbing to Friday night, when there was a good crowd of older types. Lunchtime however, was an almost daily affair...pumping me way there on the bike. It was good exercise, a nice five miles round trip.

There were, for many years, no pubs in Frinton, Frinton - enclosed by the sea, farmland and the famous railway gates - seemingly was far too posh for a pub. Mind you, it wasn't far into the swinging 60s before the Hotels allowed us in for drinks at the bars. The police didn't seem to mind as long as we were dining. A ten-bob blob of something tasty qualified, and we were left to drink and play gotcha to our heart's content.

Gotcha was a version of darts, where the giant wooden spoon and fork on the wall were used to grab at the parts of the dart-ee. It takes a steely nerve to get a good score, knowing that you might be scragged by gargantuan cutlery. Fun, fun days...er, nights. But the proper pubs were in nearby Kirby le Soken.

The Ship and the Red Lion were the hub of village life. Had been for generations. Four nights a week the places would be packed, a good crowd and smoke so think that you couldn't see across the room. Big room into nooks and crannies? Yep! and plenty of places for strange goings on.:E Worth the 103 mile drive.

It was good for another 20 years. Just my retreat. Almost always someone there to have a chat with, and lunchtimes, no 'music'. Then came the series of crunches.

Grand Met...that means nothing to me, except the words -something like anyway - "Congratulations Grand Met, you've done it again." Scrawled on the side of the 400 year old building.

The landlord had had enough. Business rates loaded on top of rising rent and costs will obviously come as no surprise to the above posters, but there were several other issues that made our man do a moonlight flit. The doors were close for the first time in my memory.

Then came a pleasant, but unfortunate lady, who they said, would just not listen. I don't know, but the place was almost always empty. The smashing barmaid had gone (thank goodness she always declined my proposals of marriage...and other things:E ) But the throbbing, boisterous, wonderful, hoot-inducing days had gone. Possibly forever.

The current landlord put a lot of money into the place, but despite the very friendly manager, there just is not the atmosphere there was. We want our old barmaid back...most of us had known her since she was a schoolgirl, and she's still nice as a granny...and somehow, an Eastern block lassie, cute as (they) are, just does not cut it as a traditional barmaid.

I want to turn back the clock. Incantations haven't worked, so perhaps a time machine would be the option. Quick trip to 1970, and back the present for tea.

Huh! not very good, but you can just see the roof sticking out of the trees on the left. The hundreds of acres of backwaters showing, with (use a microscope) the Naze tower on the high ground in the distance.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/DSC_0272.jpg


Across the road from the pub is the church. The fete is wonderful, but slowly I'm not recognizing the people. Most of them weren't born when I was young-ish But here are a few old timers. Bring their heat engins and the like every year. God I miss village life. :{


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/DSC_0232.jpg

tony draper
27th Jan 2009, 23:26
The days when the Pub was the center of working class life as they were in my young manhood are long gone, except in television soap operas.:(
We learned how to drink in those days, frinstance getting falling down drunk in your local was a no no,anybody getting in that state would have had the piss taken out of them mercilessly for months after,yet getting falling down drunk seems to be what is expected of one in places like the Big Market nowadays
.
The more I think about it the more I realize I should be eternally greatfull for being born when I was and not just twenty years ago.
:)

Avitor
27th Jan 2009, 23:27
Stamford, Lincs, a small town close to RAF Wittering, before the by-pass, all A1 traffic had to go through the centre of it, down a long hill into it, up a long hill out of it.

Legend has it, for many years it boasted 365 pubs and 52 Churches there.

One for.....you got it!

fireflybob
27th Jan 2009, 23:31
Whilst I am a non smoker who is happy with the smoking ban I was informed in a conversation tonight that quite a few drinking establishments in Spain have just put up a notice saying "This is a Smoking Pub" (in Spanish I guess) and that this conforms with the EU legislation!

I am sorry to see these establishments closing which are part of out heritage but unless they adapt more will go.

Loose rivets
27th Jan 2009, 23:33
This is a bit of a downer, but just to the left of the lightning conductor in the first picture, is a nice looking white house. It's a prison. I can't think of any other way to describe it. Youngsters are detained in the multi million quid (well, lots anyway,) modified home. People did not want that to happen, but then, what does that matter?

BOFH
28th Jan 2009, 00:36
It annoys me that my friend in a wheelchair has to roll out for a quick fag. It annoys him, too. No ramp.

Courtesy of the lickspittle Stasi who now run the country, we now pay worthless, greasy little inspectors to ensure that the law is upheld.

What's wrong with this: You have a sign saying "No Smoking". You gain business by running a pseudo-creche and having all the nice people in. You have a sign saying "Smoking permitted". You get the chavs, yes, but it's a pub, and that is what working men want. We can sort the chavs out.

But no. The objective of this government, if you can call it that, has since 1997, to restrict our lives. They want to control us, they want to tell us how many calories we may eat (and how), how many units of alcohol we may consume, and how we should take nicotine (State-subsidised).

They drop VAT but bung up the excise on a beer to keep parity. Does anybody know, or care?

Nobody gives a damn anymore, The core voters for the government either work for them, or they are paid by them for not working. The Opposition is more flaccid than I am staring at Jade Goody for half an hour. He's a thoroughly nice chap, but he reminds me of Chamberlain too much, When you deal with a megalomaniac, it helps if you are an alpha male yourself. Where's the venom? Where is the hate?

People teem in the streets about some hellhole they know nothing about or some stupid war we are prosecuting thanks to their voting the same way as their parents did, she destroyed the unions, she did, and got me chucked out of me job compiling tractor production statistics she did.

Have I strayed off topic? Perhaps. But I do not blame the Opposition for their erectile dysfunction in dealing with the smoking ban. The fault, to all you free thinkers, lies with us.

So goodbye pubs, they were really rather nice.

BOFH
ex smoker
ex pub patron

sisemen
28th Jan 2009, 02:43
In this neck of the woods the old traditional pub/hotel is dying on its feet. Many of them were built to service towns of between 5,000 and 15,000 and were riding on the back of the early mining booms. However, following the downturn of the early mining booms many of those towns have a much reduced population - some are down to nil. The answer to making the business profitable is to have a mysterious fire.

When I first came out here I had to stay at a pub/hotel for business. On the first evening when my meeting had finished I went to the bar for a drink. The place was packed to the rafters. After I fought my way to the bar I was served by a barmaid wearing not a lot. I thought this was wonderful. On the second night I went to the bar again expecting to meet up with my new mates and ogle the barmaid again. The place was empty!

I later found out that "Skimpy Night" moved around the pubs in the town and the punters went with it :E

This is my local...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c92/allan907/TFMSNS2.jpg

There are 3 pubs/hotels of this size in my town, plus a Bowling Club and a bottle shop, and they cater for a town population of about 1,000.

And this is a pic of the pub at Broad Arrow near Kalgoorlie. The town used to have a population of 15,000 - now it is down to about 5. The pub survives on tourists and every room, bar one, is full of officially sanctioned graffiti.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c92/allan907/P5250069.jpg

henry crun
28th Jan 2009, 03:10
Population of only 5 ! do they all live in the same house ? :}

Davaar
28th Jan 2009, 04:45
I suppose so, but it is a bit public.

denis555
28th Jan 2009, 09:11
Pubs closing?

This can't be true! Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) says;

"Twenty six per cent of pubs in Wales has seen an increase in families coming into the pub since April 1 and twenty eight per cent of pubs are seeing new regulars since the ban. "

Twenty Eight Percent more people visiting since the ban!

Pubs should be heaving then!:ugh:

Parapunter
28th Jan 2009, 09:28
Moderating my previous rant somewhat, I would say that around here, it has been the sticky carpet dumps that have gone to the wall with unseemly haste, the kind of pubs that the average guy would be loathe to set foot in, so perhaps there is something in the ASH postulation. Then again, hardly a beacon of impartiality are they?

shedhead
28th Jan 2009, 09:56
If I go to the pub I want it to be a real pub, I want it to sell beer and spirits not some poncy alcopop rubbish, I want background music that is in the background not drowning out all conversation, I would like to smoke without being treated like a leper,
I do not want to eat, I eat before I go to the pub not when I get there, I do not want my pub to be family friendly, if you want to spend time with your children then stay at home with them, I do not want to spend my time with them thank you very much.
the problem is the pub chains have re-branded the old traditional boozer taking it supposedly more up-market and making it trendy and cutting edge and in doing this they have alienated and lost the core customers who kept the pubs going.Instead you get a bunch of unruly yobs and yobesses getting hammered on two for one deals before staggering down the street looking for a fight or somewhere to vomit, add to this the supermarket prices and the smoking ban and you have pubs with no atmosphere and no decent customers, I prefer pubs where you are asked "what would you like?" and not "wot you lookin' at?" sadly they all seem to be closed now.

Gainesy
28th Jan 2009, 09:57
One or two good things about the smoking ban; when trapped by pub bore/local-bloody-busybody-with-her-latest-feckin-daft-petition, can now escape politely by stating need for a ciggy. Also got to talk to other smokers with whom I'd only been on nodding terms, made some new friends/useful contacts.
Downside, bar smells of farts and BO.

Actually stopped smoking now but still use ciggy excuse where needed.

As to Chavs/gobby pisssed kids etc, in my local (small village pub) they literally get a boot in the arse. End of.

forget
28th Jan 2009, 10:08
Can't complain I suppose. Then again, that's why I go there. :hmm:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/crown.jpg

SpringHeeledJack
28th Jan 2009, 10:51
That pub does look lovely forget.....

I too like 'traditional' hostelries and they seem to be getting ever more rare these days. I don't know where all the indiginous bar staff have gone, but even the smallest village pubs seem to be swamped with east european staff. They are, in general, nice, but out of synch with things and the atmosphere suffers.

No doubt they work for less and are more 'keen' and support the cost base of the landlord being squeezed by the brewery and local authority and elf 'n' safety and and so, but....

I think the rot set in some years back when private equity firms started buying up thousands of diverse pubs, bundling them together as an asset and using that to borrow billions to make deals, deals, deals. Maybe there will be an unbundling forced by the credit crunch and single landlords can buy their pub and stock it and run it as they see fit.

The yoofs seem to have less love of the pub and so the pubs have often been turned into 'nightclub-lite' to keep the punters coming in. Guinness had a worrying problem in the last few years. They noticed that their main product was losing sales everywhere younger customers gathered. It turned out that as their fathers drank a pint of the black stuff, the yoofs felt it to not be so sexy as an alcopop or a cider or 'imported' beer. Added to that the 'now' generation weren't inclined to wait the extra few minutes for the pint to be poured properly and so the G stuff was declined. The brewery came up with a method that enabled the bar staff to pour a pint that was ready to drink as fast as any other draught on offer.

As the older core :uhoh: customers are replaced by the younger, things will change and the fashion is to drink from a bottle, although having lived above a (nice) pub in the last years, seeing the rats crawling and peeing on the crates of full bottles at night has put me off this practice in pubs/bars :yuk:

Perhaps the enforced reduction in lifestyle for many, due to the economy will spawn a revival for ye olde fashioned pubbe where people will interact with each other again and have fun.


regards


SHJ

Parapunter
28th Jan 2009, 11:46
The rot set in under Thatcher's beer orders. That was what forced the big brewers to divest themselves of large chunks of their tied estates. The idea of course was to encourage competition between what would be new pub chains and the existing brewers. What we got was the rise of the pub co. and the re-establsihment of the monolithic estate of tied pubs, only this time, instead of being tied to a brewery, the landlord was tied to a pub company, who would be free to buy vast quantities of beer at very cheap prices, but sell it on at whatever price they wanted to a guaranteed buyer in the shape of the hapless landlord.

This system is great for pub co's & shareholders, not so good for the breweries who went on to consolidate into huge concerns for their survival, Diageo, Inbev, Carlsberg-Tetley etc. & awful for those actually running pubs. As ever with the hand of government, the law of unintended consequences took over & we're now far worse off than when we started this whole thing twenty years ago.

Riccal
28th Jan 2009, 12:03
Whilst I am a non smoker who is happy with the smoking ban I was informed in a conversation tonight that quite a few drinking establishments in Spain have just put up a notice saying "This is a Smoking Pub" (in Spanish I guess) and that this conforms with the EU legislation!


The legislation here is a bit different. Small bars, those under 100 sqm, have the option of opting to be a smoking or non smoking bar. A bar over 100 sqm if, it chooses to be a smoking bar, must have a clearly defined separation of smoking and non smoking areas. In other words it has to provide a non smoking area. I reckon no political party would instal a blanket ban because of the public backlash - for a few years anyway.

Work places and indoor areas (shopping malls etc.) are smoke free.

The Spanish do have a cool way of dealing with legislation at this level. I dont want to do it so I wont is usually the approach. It can be annoying in some circumstances but we generally tend to just remember how ignoring the law has worked to our advantage and forget the occasions when it has inconvenienced us (traffic incidents, banks etc.)

This is definitely not a nanny state and can usually be a cool place to live.

Rick

Scumbag O'Riley
28th Jan 2009, 12:07
I only have sympathy for those landlords who give me a full pint of beer in return for coin of the realm which totals published price of a full pint of beer.

So the vast vast majority of them can **** off and go bust as far as I am concerned.

Whiskey Oscar Golf
28th Jan 2009, 12:17
We here in Oz have seen our humble pubs go the way of revamped Irish/bistro/boutique bars. My great love was to go to the local with the mates and have a punt and drink the local brew with patrons I'd known since I was 10. There was a loyalty there and an almost safe feeling. Now as has been said I get loud music and uberbogans ( chavs to the brits ) hopped up on speed and ready to rock and roll at a look. Stops me going and we'd rather do the lager punt at someone's house using phone bet and takeaways. Sad and hard to figure if it's coz I'm getting old or there has been real change.

My main concern is when it's gone it's gone for good and any attempt to replicate down the track will look as tacky as an Irish pub in downtown Kalgoorlie. (outback goldfields to anyone not from gods country). Worse in Britain when there is so much history in those wonderful old boozers, sad really .

Load Toad
28th Jan 2009, 12:50
"Twenty six per cent of pubs in Wales has seen an increase in families coming into the pub since April 1 and twenty eight per cent of pubs are seeing new regulars since the ban. "


These 'stats' are meaningless. There may be more families in pubs but one more family than one family is 100% increase in families going into pubs and whatever the number it's a question of what they spend innit? 28% see new regulars do they - how many regulars is that and how much do they spend? How many regulars left?

I saw when I was back in UK earlier this year that several of my previous local pubs were shut - now it could be said there were too many pubs to begin with but the three reasons that pubs shut were:

1) Too dangerous to drive to a country pub and have anything to drink. OK I can see that drink driving is bad and understand that.
2) No Smoking rule. The pub is a place to drink, chat, unwind - relax. I can not understand why there can not be a smoking and no smoking area. Smoking is bad? Yeah - sure - if staff want to avoid smoke provide extraction equipment or barrier protection. If they don't want to work in a smoking environment - choose a different career. I was told that smoking was declining - not much evidence of that from people sitting outside - where expensive huts / heaters (all polluting and using fossil fuels, made in low labour cost countries as well) were in place. All the smokers were there with many non-smokers that otherwise had no conversation to take part in inside. Now the number of people that smoke may be declining - but - er - what is the % of people who regularly go to pubs that smoke? I'd hazard at above 40% at least?
3) Cheap booze in the supermarket. You can stock up on Vagrants Piss XXXX and go home to sit in front of your TV whilst getting quietly hammered for less than Six Quid every night - with no mates to chat to and no landlord to monitor how much you've had - just sit in front of that TV and watch the propaganda and adverts you little consumer you.

In Hong Kong pubs can apply for an exemption from being 'no smoking' until July this year. Most pubs applied for it and there are a few no smoking pubs. It gives consumers choice I suppose - choice which will disappear in July. I guess we'll go over the border to smoke - or the law will be ignored - or loopholes will be found. I'm sure pubs n clubs won't want to lose business during this financial mess either.

TBirdFrank
28th Jan 2009, 13:20
Ginge et al

Liverpool - Well there's still the Philharmonic afore ye go - or if you don't like walking - "The Head of Steam" on Lime Street Station.

At Victoria the Dome Bar is still the magnificanrt building it was - but don't bother stopping there for beer - just have a glance inside.

At Staleyvagas go and visit Sylvia - her bark is far worse than ......... Ow!! what was that for? :ouch: But the beer - the food - and yes - the company is great.

You could catch a local and visit The Railway at Greenfield or stay "fast" and head for Huddersfield which has a bar at either end of the platform - The Station or another Head of Steam - both are excellent. There are really good bar meals at the Head of Steam too!

Then to Dewsbury where the Great Northern is just that! Timmy Taylors - that'll do nicely!

There's a Wetherspoons at Leeds but we are after quality so on to York - The Maltings adjacent to Lendal Bridge or the Brewery are up there with the best - and there's Hudson's sandwich shop as its known - best in the north! - except its not actually called Hudson's.

Can you eat two scufflers???

Anyone for a pub crawl on rails????

We used to do them as quiz nights - answers to be found at each watering hole

Storminnorm
28th Jan 2009, 14:27
TBird Frank and chiglet. Can you please STOP going on
about Stalyvegas, Uddersfelt and Dewsbury!
You're making me homesick, and there's Bu**er all
that I can do about it at the Moment! Thank you. :{

tony draper
28th Jan 2009, 14:32
Some one pinched me brand new Electric Drill in Dewsbury:suspect: from inside a Lloyds Bank no less,thieving feckers, Dewsbury is on me nuclear target list.
:E

Gainesy
28th Jan 2009, 14:50
Hey Frank, Steve the Shaman was on about a railway ale trail based around udderfield t'other day but couldn't remember the names of the various station bars etc, could you oblige please? I know Dewsbury was one place he mentioned and that he wanted to stay on fast tracks so as to get back down to Sussex about mid-evening.

denis555
28th Jan 2009, 14:52
These 'stats' are meaningless.


Totally agree Load Toad! As I remember a number of 'surveys' were carried out asking non smokers if they would visit a pub more if smoking was banned - not surprisingly they got a 99.9% 'Yes' answer.

However I never noticed the smoking 'old boys' who were real regulars being replaced by anyone - just a big empty place where they used to sit at the bar.

Oh tell a lie - my mother in law did increse her pub visits after the ban - I believe she went once in 2007 and once in 2008 - as opposed to once every two years - and had a small spritzer.

So in her case a 100% increase in trade.

Storminnorm
28th Jan 2009, 15:01
A small spritzer Denis? We had one of them!
Lovely little doggie!

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2009, 15:37
Listening to some of the tripe in here I am surprised no one has tried to blame the current economic crisis on the smoking ban :=

The smoking ban was a sensible decision taken to ensure that the silent majority no longer had to endure the filth, pollution and carcinogenic waste that the weak willed in society somehow describe as pleasure.

And it has come on in leaps and bounds meaning that I can go to any public place/event I want and not come home and consign every item of clothing to the wash basket, then shower and wash my hair to get rid of the awful stench of tobacco smoke.

Whilst there may be some very quaint anecdotal evidence from the flat cap and whippet posters on this thread the decline of the British pub has been going on for years. It is down to the greed of publicans and breweries alongside the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets which brings about the current situation and until pubs/breweries sort their lives out nothing will ever change.

Rant off................................and relax :O

TBirdFrank
28th Jan 2009, 16:13
Gainesey

Tell The Shaman to find a good cheapie ticket from sarf of the river to York and a similar from the final stop back home - with a suitable interval between times for the intermediate journeys.

Out to York

Like I said above - leave station - turn left - do not go over bridge over river but divert into the Maltings - excellent range

Leave Maltings but instead of going to station turn left and at the end of the street - right - onto Toft Green. About 100 yards up on the left hand side is the York Brewery - top place - top beer. To get to Hudsons sarny shop retrace steps one block and head off through the entry to Micklegate - and its on the corner of the entry - good honest Yorkshire grub - the best you will get!

Then off back to the station and catch a train for Dewsbury - The West Riding Bar is part of the station - and very good it is too!

Once you have sampled the fare -

Off to what is this place?? - they call it Uddersfeeled!!

At one end of the station is The Station Tavern a long time fixture

At the other end is the Johnnie Come Lately - but equally excellent Head of Steam - both are well worth a visit.

Now - over the hill to Staleyvegas and then home from Manchester or straight back to Leeds and home direct -

That's my recommendation - either way there will be a couple of hours on the way south to snooze it off

Avitor
28th Jan 2009, 16:22
The smoking ban has killed pubs, not a molecule of doubt.

To the non-smoking deniers, enjoy your bland, soulless ex-pubs.

....if you can find one! :)

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2009, 16:25
In the smokers mind the smoking ban has killed pubs.............but then again in the smokers mind smoking is OK.............:rolleyes:

Load Toad
28th Jan 2009, 16:40
And it has come on in leaps and bounds meaning that I can go to any public place/event I want and not come home and consign every item of clothing to the wash basket, then shower and wash my hair to get rid of the awful stench of tobacco smoke.

Like most non smokers you embrace wearing clothes until they stink of BO are covered in dirt / snot / debris of various meals before you wash them is it?

Yes smoking is bad - but where there was choice - now there is none. If you want to honour your body as a temple fine - go ahead but don't stop me from treating mine like a vessel that will get discarded in three score years or so. Incidentally - I think you'll die of something or other one day too.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2009, 16:49
LT,

Never heard the BO and snot thing before, how original...... but I am a tad confused with

"Yes smoking is bad - but where there was choice - now there is none" :confused:

denis555
28th Jan 2009, 17:01
The smoking ban is not the only cause - but is part of the reason.

I can see myself the results in my local, at least half a dozen regulars ( and I mean people who drink at least 3 pints at least 3 days a week) rarely visit at all.

They have not been replaced with non-smokers who don't want to come home 'smelling like an ashtray'

High prices against supermarket booze has a lot to answer for in my book.

Storminnorm
28th Jan 2009, 17:10
I've been off the booze since they brought in the smoking ban.
Nothing to do with the ban itself though.
My Mum keeps falling over so I have to drive round to restore
her equilibrium at some very odd hours.
Last call was at 00-30 hrs, so can't take the chance of being
nicked by the Plods.
Sad, used to enjoy a couple of pints fairly regularly. :{

Funny thing is that I never had a smoke whilst in the pub anyhow. ODD.
Used to just breathe in everyone elses.

BlooMoo
28th Jan 2009, 17:30
The smoking ban was a sensible decision taken to ensure that the silent majority

My understanding was that the majority, i.e. both smokers AND non-smokers, were in favour of a compromise that retained the concept of choice rather than an outright ban. The politicians knew this and so resorted to the tactic of introducing the law as necessary to comply with elf&safety legislation rather than by the non-existent 'popular demand' that now seems to be repeatedly trotted out as a kind of post justification. The reality is that the current total ban exists not because of the wishes of any 'silent majority' but, as ever in the UK, because of a loud minority.

Say again s l o w l y
28th Jan 2009, 17:47
Frankly unless you are a smoker who wants to smoke for your own selfish reasons, then the smoking ban is chuffing great.

Has it killed pubs? Not the good ones. Certain types of pub (i.e sh*tholes) have suffered, but to solely blame the smoking ban for the death of crap pubs is so stupid that it defies belief.

The problem is that as a non smoker in a smoking pub, you don't get a choice as to whether you get bothered by the horrid stench and as far as I'm aware, most people don't smoke. So why should I have to put up with stinking like an old man just because I want a drink and a chat?

Good pubs will survive, crap ones won't. Yes, it's a loss but all the pubs I've seen close down have been ones that I wouldn't have set foot in if you paid me.

I was at the pub the other night and after closing we all trooped back to someones house to continue the rumpus. Quite a few people sparked up there and frankly it was absolutely awful. I felt as rough as old boots the next day. Nothing to do with the booze, all to do with the smoke.

As for comments that "staff have a choice whether to work in a pub" have a word with yourself. Do you really think that pub workers have a choice about this sort of thing, or that pubs that are already failing should spend thousands on air filtration systems that take constant maintenance and need to be installed in what are often very old and listed buildings...........Yeah right.

Gainesy
28th Jan 2009, 17:54
Magic Frank, thank you very much.:ok:

Gnirren
28th Jan 2009, 17:58
You couldn't possibly remove the pubs in England, it's almost the only pastime available! Slip into the 'ol high-vis, dodge the knife-wielding chavs on your way and sit down with a nice cold one. There's the good life fer ya.

747 jock
28th Jan 2009, 18:53
Yes smoking is bad - but where there was choice - now there is none.

Yes there is.

When smoking was allowed in pubs, non smokers had the chioce to go in and end up stinking of stale smoke, or stay at home.
Now smokers have a choice to go in and not smoke, or stay at home.
Just because the law now favours non smokers doesn't mean that there is no choice for smokers. They are still free to visit any pub they wish.

Like most non smokers you embrace wearing clothes until they stink of BO are covered in dirt / snot / debris of various meals before you wash them is it?
So you would have no objection to me pouring beer or spitting on your clothes then? After all, you are going to change or wash them at the end of the day.

With self centered comments like those two, all I can say is that the smoking ban didn't come soon enough.

747 jock
28th Jan 2009, 19:07
The smoking ban has killed pubs, not a molecule of doubt.
More like the breweries have killed pubs. The possibility of a smoking ban was being talked about for years before it actually happened, and if some of the pub owners had installed decent extraction and ventallation systems (not a tiny window fan), and shown a bit more willing to protect the health of its workers and patrons, the ban may never have happened, or it may have been a bit more lenient with smoking/non smoking areas.
All that most of the breweries/owners were interested in was making a quick buck, and screw everyone else.


Two pubs in a village near Gatwick that I used to live in closed down whilst I was there, both of them long before the smoking ban.

The Abergavenny arms. Sold by the brewery to enable houses to be built on the land.
The Hunters moon. Sold by the owner to allow flats to be built on the land.
And this has happened to many other pubs throughout the south east of the UK, and started long before the smoking ban came in.

The Greyhound pub (a mile from gatwick) closed down last year. It has recently reopened under new management, and despite the smoking ban, is starting to look like a place with a good turnover again.
Why would it reopen if the smoking ban would ensure that it would run at a loss?

Double Zero
28th Jan 2009, 19:38
I live in Horsham, a fairly large town; there is not a single pub I would be seen dead in, soul-less.

There are some marvellous old pubs in the countryside around within a 5 mile radius - including the 14th century Plough at Rusper, under the flightpath of some of you Gatwick types.

That doesn't worry me a jot, the a/c are not that close or loud, but I could well do without the bloody bell-ringers...

My girlfriend lives in a very nice, very expensive village between Petworth & Midhurst.

There are 2 pubs, one of which is old but has been tarted up so much it is difficult to tell.

Both feature, literally, about 2-4 tiny seats for 'drinkers' and are entirely devoted to selling food at eye-watering prices.

In Midhurst itself, I occasionally used to visit a particular high street pub after shopping etc, and sit down with a pint and an aircraft magazine.

There were usually smokers around the bar, but as it's an old place it had a long, large saloon where I was well away from the smoke.

The high rates were already crippling, but the smoking ban was the final straw; it's now a Pizza Hut.

The only other pub on the high street was a nice, very old place, and with the agricultural & military artefacts on the wall, more like a museum than a pub, which is how I like it.

There was sensible food like cottage pies for realistic prices too ( if I want a 'posh' meal out I'll go to a restaurant thanks very much ) - recently it was taken over by a couple of trendy types; totally stripped out to the 'minimalist' look, brown paint everywhere, and menus with no prices !!!

I give it another month or two...but it can do it without me.

There are still some good pubs around, snag is most involve driving; one landlord of a very nice country pub in a village outside Horsham had the iniative to buy a minibus and run his customers home - possibly the only way forward for country pubs.

I remember making a special point of visiting the White Hart ( Bersted ? ) near Westerham as Neville Duke mentions the pilots from Biggin Hill spending their evenings there...well there is a plaque signed by him & many other pilots, but I doubt he'd find much of the atmosphere remaining.

tony draper
28th Jan 2009, 20:10
Some data here re this subject.
Number of pubs in the UK - Industry data (http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/10/06/53051/number-of-pubs-in-the-uk-industry-data.html)
Hmmm, for some reason it won't open from this link,anyway I just googled Number of Pubs in the UK and it was top of the list

BlooMoo
28th Jan 2009, 20:14
Now smokers have a choice to go in and not smoke, or stay at home.
Just because the law now favours non smokers doesn't mean that there is no choice for smokers. They are still free to visit any pub they wish.

Non-smokers had the same choice. If they didn't want to go into an environment that people had the right to smoke in then they could equally just 'stay at home'. That's only a choice if you think that pubs came into being under some EU directive for serving crap food with a background noise of screaming kids. Pubs are not a 'human right', they're a commercial product.

The commercial opportunity for smoke-free pubs has existed for centuries. It was even tried by some since the eighties and each experiment lasted... well, weeks in some cases. Key point is that pubs had not and had never been required by law to allow smoking.

If the demand really existed for such a product then courtesy of Adam Smith smoking-prohibited pubs would have flourished. They didn't though, so therefore a sudden total ban on smoking in pubs has surely had an economic effect. Pubs are now evolving into their new environment and some species will go extinct but that doesn't mean that the perceived value of the survivors balances out.

Parapunter
28th Jan 2009, 20:23
Seems to me, the law has reversed one iniquity into another. Non smokers it's fair to say would experience a pretty miserable time in a smoky pub. Now smokers endure a miserable time out in the cold.

Most pubs have two bars. Not all, but most. It would not be beyond the wit of most to see where I'm going with this. It could actually be possible to please all the people all of the time.

BTW Clarkson does a pretty good demolition of all the sanctimonious non smokers in last week's Sunday Times.

tony draper
28th Jan 2009, 20:28
Of course if you wish to light up a ciggy/cigar/pipe in a Pub get yourself elected to parliament,they made sure the members bars were exempt from the legislation,one law for them one law for the rest of us as per.
:)

BlooMoo
28th Jan 2009, 20:35
Don't forget prisons - one law for politicians/criminals...oh, sorry. You're right. Again.

tony draper
28th Jan 2009, 20:37
Well they do have similar customers.:)

BlooMoo
28th Jan 2009, 20:43
But as vendors one set still adheres to a form of principle.

Avitor
28th Jan 2009, 21:28
I could say lots more but I have had my say. I am satisfied merely to wonder......when was it that pubs began to go out of business.

I can also say, they were lost to smokers and non smokers alike.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2009, 23:12
"Seems to me, the law has reversed one iniquity into another. Non smokers it's fair to say would experience a pretty miserable time in a smoky pub. Now smokers endure a miserable time out in the cold."

Of course the easy solution to the above dilemma is if the smokers had sufficient will power to defeat their addiction they could enjoy the warmth like the rest of us.................simples init :ok:

Parapunter
28th Jan 2009, 23:13
No, not simple. Smug. Not simple.

Say again s l o w l y
28th Jan 2009, 23:15
Seems to me, the law has reversed one iniquity into another. Non smokers it's fair to say would experience a pretty miserable time in a smoky pub. Now smokers endure a miserable time out in the cold.

Most pubs have two bars. Not all, but most. It would not be beyond the wit of most to see where I'm going with this. It could actually be possible to please all the people all of the time.

Most pubs do not have two bars. Of all the pubs/bars that I can think of, only 2 have got 2 bars and I know a lot of pubs!

Smokers don't have to smoke so they don't have to go outside if they don't want to. When I'm sitting in a pub with smokers I have no choice but to breathe in the obnoxious odours that emanate from them. I'm not even going to scratch the surface of the health benefits as I'm sure many of you might guess where my feelings lie on that.

So smokers have to go outside to have a puff, well boo hoo. I go to the loo if I want a slash. Where's the difference? I wouldn't pee on you, so why do you feel the need to blow carcinogenic smoke in my face?

It's a pub not a smokehouse.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2009, 23:17
From where I sit it's simple, nothing smug about.

Say again s l o w l y
28th Jan 2009, 23:23
I'm an ex-smoker and when I see people shivering outside in the peeing rain gasping on a fag, I don't feel smug, just confused.

BlooMoo
28th Jan 2009, 23:25
When I'm sitting in a pub with smokers I have no choice

Yes you do, you can either f*ck off outside or stay at home.

Parapunter
28th Jan 2009, 23:30
SAS, I'm not unsympathetic to your situation, however, you emote where reason would be a better path. The pubs you know are not the UK estate.

I don't feel the need to blow smoke on you, nor do I feel the need to exclude a section of society that don't conform to certain lifestyle ideals.

All I say is that it is not necessary for the government to proscribe certain behaviours where accomodating alternatives may be available. I cannot fix the world any more than you can, but I can suggest compromises to suit parties.


SFFP, if you can cobble together a cogent argument as opposed to a one line refutation, I would be glad to consider it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2009, 23:37
Para,

Smoking is on the decline because thousands of folk each year summon up the moral and mental courage to kick what what is without doubt one of the most addictive and dangerous habits known to man or not submit to peer pressure in the first place.........

When I posted

"Of course the easy solution to the above dilemma is if the smokers had sufficient will power to defeat their addiction they could enjoy the warmth like the rest of us.................simples init"

I was not being smug but simply stating the bleedin obvious..........is that cogent enough for you :ok:

Say again s l o w l y
28th Jan 2009, 23:43
But the point is that for the majority of society, this is a good thing.

So you used to be able to smoke in pubs......fine, I used to smoke in them too when I was younger. However, the pubs primary business is to sell booze, not as a place for people to smoke.

Pubs have been in trouble for a good while for many reasons already mentioned.

My problem with cigarette smoke is not that people deliberately blow smoke over you, but that it is impossible for any room that doesn't have a good, well maintained ventialtion system not to be affected by even a single cigarette. When you have say 40% of the occupants of said non ventilated room puffing away constantly, then it is impossible for the other 60% not to be affected by the smell.

Cigarette smoke is awful, it is acrid and stings the eyes. Oddly enough I don't mind pipe smoke or even some cigars, but fag smoke I find more offensive than sitting in a room with a bunch of students, half of whom don't know what a shower is and the other half think that bathing in lynx is a good way to attract girls.

There is just no way to get around the fact that most of us don't smoke and don't like to be subjected to cigarette smoke when all we want is a drink and a chat in the pub.

I do go to the pub more often than I used to before the ban, admittedly not as much as I did as a student, but my pub going activities have been enhanced immeasurably.

Don't get me wrong, I would never advocate for a ban on smoking, but I'm all for restricting where it is acceptable. If you want to do it, go ahead, I just don't want to have to put up with your vice.

Parapunter
28th Jan 2009, 23:58
No sffp, since it's a generalisation.

Sas, to take the points in turn, I don't think it's beyond a society that produces Ipods, a380's and Bugatti Veyrons to produce a self sealed environment such that the room next door doesn't have to breathe the same atmosphere. More that it's a commercial imperative. Were the numbers to add up, we'd have it by now.

It does stink, it is invasive & you do have to wash your hair etc etc.

Yet I find myself asking; Where do you draw the line? No wheel chairs on tow paths? No over 50 squash players? No blind people on the pavement?

My beef is not with a cancer sufferer, but with a proscriptive government intent on pursuing an agenda that assumes superiority over it's constituency. I'm just one of those people who thinks there's room for everyone, the wally smokers alongside the marathon runners.:ok:

tony draper
29th Jan 2009, 00:07
Strange how things turn around in just fifty years, in my youth none smokers were regarded with deep suspicion,offer someone a ciggy in the pub and they said "no thank you I don't smoke" the bar would fall silent,people sitting close to this aberration would shuffle sideways to put some distance betwixt themselves and the freak,when they came out of their front doors harridans gossiping in the street would nudge each other and give knowing looks,children playing in the gutter would be hussled weeping in doors ,after all, a none smoker was in all probability a child molester as well.
:E

Parapunter
29th Jan 2009, 00:11
Exactly how many westerns have you seen Mr. D?:rolleyes:

the bar would fall silent

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 00:14
Wasn't that the whole point of this thread before it drifted onto toxic poisoning :ok:

CoodaShooda
29th Jan 2009, 00:33
Coincidence or what?

The day after this thread started, Australia's national broadcaster ran a TV news item on the loss of pubs in the UK.

Figure quoted was 6 closures a day.

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 00:36
The smoking ban certainly was not a plebiscite, however, it is plain by reading some of the posts on here, it was initiated by some extremely selfish and holier than thou people.
Enjoy those remaining pubs, soon, thanks to intransigence and bloody mindedness in its worst form there will be none to enjoy.
<Mind the traffic, avoid walking under ladders and keep an eye open for knife carrying persons>

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 00:57
Para, no it's not beyond our technological wit to produce air filtration systems where you could allow smoking, the problem is, is that no-one will pay for it. Not only that, you try getting planning permission to knock the lumps out in many of our old pubs.

But that's the point, people like me have been clamouring for years for something to be done, there was plenty of opportunity for the pub trade to do something about it, but they did naff all, so the Government stepped in.

Was it heavy handed? I don't think so. I'm not a fan of over regulation in any area, especially when it comes down to civil liberties. Mention I.D cards to me and I'm likely to explode in a fit of pique. This smoking ban is not an attack on civil liberties, if it was I'd be manning the barricades too.

Smokers can still smoke, they just can't do it where it would adversely affect people who have no say in how they are being affected. If you came to my house and lit up a fag, then I'd boot you outside. I didn't have that right in a pub. Conversely if I came to your gaff and you were having a fag, well it's your house, so I wouldn't moan. I might not come round very often though.

You have a choice about going outside, non smokers in a smoky pub didn't.

I've had this discussion with many people down at the local pub and frankly very few smokers are ever going to agree with it. It's like asking hunters if they agree with the ban on fox hunting. The same old selfish arguments come out "why should I go outside, grump, grump" without any view to how much society as a whole is going to benefit from the ban, frankly I can't see any argument for there to be smoking in any public place anymore. I despise walking through a cloud of fag smoke whenever I go into a large building and why should employer fork out for smoking areas? When my colleagues used to nip off for a fag once an hour for 5 minutes, was I ever offered a similar break to make up for the extra time I was working? Should heroin addicts be given time away from work to shoot up? Of course not.

Smoking is starting to die out compared to 50 years ago, it'll never go completely in the same way that going to church won't die out completely either, despite an enormous drop in bums on seats compared to its heyday.
I find smoking and religion similar, both are baffling.

I am actually quite proud that instead of the usual bug*ers muddle that comes from the government, this legislation is clear and to the point. There are stupid bits, but overall it serves it's purpose.

If it was an unpopular ban with the general voting public, don't you think that some of the opposition parties would be saying that they'd get it repealed? Oddly enough, they are all silent on the matter.

Smokers can whinge, moan and b*tch all they like. It is here to stay and I for one am thankful for it.

As you can probably tell. I don't like smoking, doesn't mean I don't like smokers though and anyway since you all contribute £11bn to the treasury in taxes every year, then thanks, just **** off and do your filthy habit away from me! Oh and when you come back, please chew some gum, your breath does ming.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 02:14
The only folk the smoking ban is unpopular with are smokers themselves :ok:

Pubs and the Breweries have blamed their falling sales on all sorts over the years but product price and greed are the key factors in their down turn :ok:

con-pilot
29th Jan 2009, 03:00
It is very sad that common sense has not prevailed and allowances were made for both smokers and non-smokers. But, in this in your face Politically Correct world I guess not.

Richo77
29th Jan 2009, 04:16
Wow, pubs in the UK suck!. At least here in the great southern land, we still have somewhat of a choice.

At my local club and 2 local pubs there are smoking areas. Both pubs in the beer garden. Whilst that is where most of the food is served, there are 2 areas you can eat in, smoking or non smoking. It does seem to work.

I'll admit in not 100% familiar with hows pubs are run over there and granted it is different (from what i read), but there is still the option. Smokers know where they can go and the entire inside of the pub as well and a section of the garden is for any non-smokers.

Yup, im a smoker myself but for those of you who've been whingeing about sitting in the pub and getting smoke blown in your face all night, harden the f**k up! I have NEVER intentionally blown smoke in someone's face and even when it happens accidentally (even to other smokers) i apologise profusely. If someone kept doing it to me, id have a quiet word in his or her pink shell like.

Yep its a smelly dirty habit which is probably killing us, but somethings gotta kill ya right?.

Again whilst im not sure about how it works in the UK we pay so much tax on our smokes here that non-smokers may grumble and moan all they like, but ill bet my smoke taxes paid for hospital services, roads, schools or the like which they have utilised.

The biggest problem the smoking ban caused here, was the poker machines. A great number of punters in Aust seemed to be smokers, and clubs and pubs have all said their numbers are down cause the punters go for a smoke and decide theyve had enough. (not really a bad thing). But they have made ways around that too. Outside smoking/poker machine areas. Where will it end?

Rollingthunder
29th Jan 2009, 04:36
When that law came in here there was a grace period where the establishment could build a separate smoking area with isolated ventilation.

That worked until it was realized and complained about because the servers would still have to enter a smoke polluted environment. So much for that.

merlinxx
29th Jan 2009, 05:45
Have a gander at BITE # pubs and bars - beerintheevening.com (http://www.beerintheevening.com) to check out a few boozers in 'Auntie Betty's homeland':ok:

Light Westerly
29th Jan 2009, 06:23
Interesting topic.
In Alaska, a friend and I have discussed the possibility of using our remaining years and dollars to build, staff, and run a proper "pub".
We've got a dartboard in reserve.
The place will be aviation themed, with pictures of floatplanes, small turboprop airplanes operating austerely in Alaska and Afghanistan, and a slick fleet of funny, sweet, experienced (yet still emotionally tender) single moms in mini-skirts running the show.
I've spent a wee bit of time in England. (Is that still right? Don't wanna get all tangled up in semantics).
Beautiful country. Beautiful People. Thank you.
You too Scotland.
You oughta look after your pubs.
In America we've got bars. Awful things for the most part. TV's wherever your eyes may wander, too much light, often loud, smelling of too many young people and jalapeno popper appetizers, authentic five year old weathered signage for decoration . Unless you are lucky enough to be located in or near the last vestiges of economic activity in our "Rust Belt", or a large military base which routinely deploys it's staff, you're gonna be disappointed in what we've got.
At all costs, avoid places with names like "TGI Fridays".
If you must, go see "Hooters". In Florida or California anyway. Get it out of your system.

When I think of you guys, and gals, over there across the pond- I like to think of you sitting in a nice, dark, musty, (and yes, smokey), place surrounded by none of these; television, perky blondes, ferns, laminated menus, or cold beer. I like to think of you, over there, swapping age old secrets, ones learnt under a never setting sun.
Carry on Friends. Have one for U.S.
Support your local pub!

Loose rivets
29th Jan 2009, 06:31
I pounded this out in 2006...obviously with some emotional force making me shout through the keyboard. Yes, it was motivated by seeing 30 years of my mother's life ruined by smoking.

She was pretty sharp until the end...calling me on her last day on Earth, having surrounded herself with medical books she'd got out from the library herself. Her diagnosis was correct and it had nothing to do with lung cancer. Lung damage just ruined a third of her life; she had to bear the consequences of smoking until she was 93.


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/187918-quit-smoking-yeah-but-how-4.html#post2627102

denis555
29th Jan 2009, 07:53
It's funny that whenever this subject is 'aired' (pun intended ) you have comments like this;

Smokers can whinge, moan and b*tch all they like.

and this;


but for those of you who've been whingeing about sitting in the pub and getting smoke blown in your face all night, harden the f**k up!


I can't help but notice that,

Whinging - Is only done by people whose views you don't share. It is a dishourable thing to do.

Complaining - Is done by those you agree with and is an honourable thing to do.

Anyone care to explain the difference between the two?

Light Westerly
29th Jan 2009, 08:21
If one is vehemently opposed to smoking in pubs or other SHARED public spaces, why not-
Stay home in your exclusive, safe, soothing, smoke-free environment?
Open up your very own non-smoking pub?

angels
29th Jan 2009, 08:35
"Twenty six per cent of pubs in Wales has seen an increase in families coming into the pub since April 1 and twenty eight per cent of pubs are seeing new regulars since the ban. "

I can't believe that no-one has pointed out that what these statistics REALLY mean.

IE -

74 percent of pubs has (sic) seen no increase, or a decrease in families coming into the pub.

72 percent of pubs are not seeing new regulars.

Of course plenty of the old regulars would have left.

It's obvious the smoking ban has had an effect. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people and a lot of them stopped going to the pub after the ban. You don't have to be pro or anti smoking in pubs to realise that that is the plain truth.

From this thread it looks to me as if the Spanish have got it right.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 09:05
Which is precisely why I posted this earlier

"The only folk the smoking ban is unpopular with are smokers themselves http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif"

which is as true a statement as you will ever get.

However the biggest challenge for smokers is in trying to justify what they do and I have found in the past that you get a subject change very very quickly when you ask things like

Using logic, common sense and any medical fact you care to choose tell us why you started smoking?.................................

or

Using logic, common sense and any medical fact you care to choose tell us why you don't quit?.........................

or

Using logic and common sense tell us why you think it fair that you should be allowed to smoke in a pub when you are fully aware of the effects your addiction has on all those around you and the fixtures and fittings of the establishment?

Those sort of questions really get to the heart of the matter. Experience tells me that in answer to the first question the conversation goes very quiet as there simply is no answer. Which is not strictly correct as the answer is one they are way to embarrassed to admit too because all smokers start because they were too weak willed to stand up to peer pressure.

As for the next question all you will ever hear are all the usual platitudes along the lines of I enjoy it, it's my choice, it's not against the law, you have to die of something which doesn't really address the question. Smokers rarely give the obvious answer as it's way to embarrassing to have to admit to not having the will power to face their demons.

And don't you just love the rather inane response that tells you the tax from smoking goes along way and non smokers should be grateful for that.........google "The cost of smoking to the tax payer" and follow the links to the many venerable and trusted medical sites to see what the true cost is and come back and tell us how the tax payer is getting such a great deal


As regards the third if you only have to read some of the neolithic responses in here to see that there is, again no rational answer to the question............and eventually smokers have to resort to something along the lines of

"but for those of you who've been whingeing about sitting in the pub and getting smoke blown in your face all night, harden the f**k up!"

The fact I find most strange in all of this is how some smokers will bang the drum and beat their chests in almost Pankhurst fashion on the subject of smoking in pubs yet would never consider lighting up in your home, car, office, garden etc etc without first asking your permission.

Now that has always confused the f$ck out of me :confused:

Parapunter
29th Jan 2009, 09:24
The medical arguments are unassailable. What sffp forgets & cannot argue without becoming personal is proscription in society. With respect sffp, it comes on like Hazel Blears or worse Patricia Hewitt.:eek:

I don't think you'll get a single dissonant response on the medical issue, which I imagine is why you choose such a safe harbour. But the logical extension of the ban on smoking is what we see daily from this government. The increasing intrusion on what should be grown up choices made by individuals using their own faculties. But no, more and more, Westminster sees fit to dictate how I should run my life, from what I do if I become unemployed to where and when I can or can't have a drink to how I should be judged if I inadvertently put a bottle in the bin instead of the recycling.

You can have your medical argument, I don't want it. However, you should be more alive to inexorable erosion of your civil liberties & personal freedoms. I don't use pubs at all & haven't for some time. The reason? I didn't like the smoky fug & now I'm out of the habit of going.

It's neither here nor there to me whether people smoke or not, but what I object to, apart from the sanctimonious arguments is the sleepwalking toward 1984 that you seeem happy to accept.

tony draper
29th Jan 2009, 09:26
Tiz true what they say,"There's nobody more puritanical than a reformed whore"
:rolleyes:

Scumbag O'Riley
29th Jan 2009, 09:50
The medical arguments are unassailable.Is there any medical evidence that second hand smoke is harmful to be found in peer reviewed papers, not propaganda from governments or other special interests?

I object to smoking in public for the same reasons I object to people spitting in my face.

Now I'm off to the supermarket web sites to find good deals on wine which aren't a rip off like what you get in pubs.

angels
29th Jan 2009, 09:55
seldom - I'll bite. I know a moral crusader when I see one, but my report I'm doing at work is nearly done and I've got a relaxing day ahead of me, so here goes.

"The only folk the smoking ban is unpopular with are smokers themselves "

which is as true a statement as you will ever get.


No it isn't. Publicans forced out of business by the smoking ban? Bingo-goers unable to play Bingo after the closure of their local bingo hall due to the smoking ban? The non-smokers who now don't go to the pub because the (albeit smoky) atmosphere has gone? All have occured in my manor.

Now to your questions which I will answer honestly.

Using logic, common sense and any medical fact you care to choose tell us why you started smoking?

I started smoking because my mates did. Everyone around me smoked. My dad smoked cigars. There was no reason not to.

Using logic, common sense and any medical fact you care to choose tell us why you don't quit?.

As Mark Twain said, "Giving up smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times."

My honest answer is, I don't want to.

Using logic and common sense tell us why you think it fair that you should be allowed to smoke in a pub when you are fully aware of the effects your addiction has on all those around you and the fixtures and fittings of the establishment?

The pubs I used to go into were full of smokers. Sure that wasn't fair on the non-smokers. But now the non-smokers can't go into my local at all now because it closed following the massive drop off in trade after the smoking ban. It was a good pub.

The great thing about you is you answered the questions anyway!

And re smokers asking permission to smoke, you just don't get it do you. Smokers object to being ordered to not do something legal.

I await your response. :ok:

goudie
29th Jan 2009, 10:43
I am an ex-smoker but not a crusading one, however I think the smoking issue is a red herring when it comes to reasons for pub closure.
When my local banned smoking a few smokers remarked that it had helped them to stop smoking or at least cut down.
Smokers are in the minority these days and many are women who do not probably support the pub trade anyway. Going to the pub is getting very expensive compared to having a drink at home and more and more people prefer this especially on cold winter nights.

Mac the Knife
29th Jan 2009, 10:49
While it is still perfectly legal to BUY cigarettes then it seems illogical to forbid pubs (and similar places) from providing areas where people may smoke if they wish.

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

If the government is so rabidly anti-smoking (an easy target) and want to stop it EVERYWHERE then the logical thing to do is to stop cigarettes being sold.

Mac :ok:

[and yes, I miss the old pubs and cafe's]

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 11:10
Smokers aren't being ordered not to do anything, they are just being told they can't do it in certain locations. There is no ban on actually buying or smoking of fags is there.

I still don't get the civil liberties argument. I and other non smokers have the same rights as any smoker, we just have a law now that helps protect us from breathing in noxious fumes whereas before we didn't get a choice in the matter.

This law is simply an inconvienience for smokers and nobody has suggested a way that solves the problems for all of us.

Public health is more important than someones right to sit and smoke in a public place, when the alternative, you go outside and spark up, is so simple and cheap.

One of the major problems has been the reticence of the pub trade to offer any alternative, you can say that it's just a matter of choice and that people shoud just be given the option of working or going into a smoky environment, but that disregards the fact that that isn't really a choice is it.

"Why don't you set up a non smoking pub".......What rot. Many of my friends happen to be smokers, why should we have to drink in seperate places just because they smoke?

Knowing what we all do about how smoking affects our bodies and what the effects of secondary smoke are why is this even an issue? (Scumbag, there are plenty of peer reviewed medical papers about the danger of secondary smoke. There are also many papers that state secondary smoke isn't a danger, however they are usually funded by a certain Phillip Morris, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Or you could just use common sense and realise that if smoke is bad for the primary smoker, then how is it any different for the rest of us?)

The pub trade and other similar industries are in the mire over this, because there has been a huge sea change in a very short time. All of a sudden the traditional punters have been told thou shall not smoke in here, but it takes time for a new set of clients to start coming in as regularily.

Non-smokers have avoided pubs in many cases because of the smoking and it'll take time for people not used to nipping down to the pub to start doing so.

Hopefully there will still be pubs left, but as I've already said, all the good pubs I know are doing very well thank you very much from the ban, the god awful ones aren't. All that's happened is their rate of decay has been sped up. They would have died a death anyway eventually.

Why do people go to pubs? Is it the beer, the people, the conversation or because they can smoke there? I go because it serves beer and there are people in it that I want to talk to. WTF has smoking got to do with anything? If you solely go to the pub because you smoke, then I suggest you have a problem!

Mac, there is no way you can have smoking areas inside the same open building as a non smoking bit, without the non smokers being affected by the fag smoke. Restaurants have proved this time and time again. Someone lights up a fag. Everyone one in the room has to smell it.

It'll never be banned though, the Government make too much money from it and let's face it, smokers like motorists are easy targets for constantly upping taxes.

Gainesy
29th Jan 2009, 11:12
But then they would miss the revenue.

Parapunter
29th Jan 2009, 11:18
I and other non smokers have the same rights as any smoker


Public health is more important than someones right to sit and smoke in a public place

Therein lies the contradiction at the nub of the matter SAS. Smokers no longer have the same rights as non smokers because Ms. Hewitt told us, as do you, what we should do!

Mr. speaker, I withdraw gracefully from the debate as it is now going round in circles.

419
29th Jan 2009, 11:21
While it is still perfectly legal to BUY cigarettes then it seems illogical to forbid pubs (and similar places) from providing areas where people may smoke if they wish.

It's perfectly legal to buy condoms as well, but pubs in the UK don't provide places where you can use them. (well, not where I live anyway)

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 11:37
I reckon Say Again Slowly is an anti smoker with an Oak Tree sized chip on his shoulder.
Not once has he rattled on about pub closures, preferring to spout his abusive anti smoking clap trap.

Wanna fag?

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 11:38
We do have the same rights. If I want a cigarette, then I have to go outside. It just happens that I don't want a cigarette!

I have as much right to smoke as the next person, I just choose not to excercise that right.

You're right though, this is a discussion that can never end. Smokers will never be happy about the smoking ban and non-smokers will never give a sh*t!

hellsbrink
29th Jan 2009, 11:48
So if the smokers have the same rights as non smokers, why do the smokers HAVE to go outside instead of making the non smokers sit outside?

You can hardly call that equal.

Anyway, you breathe in far worse every day due to all these nice diesel engines everywhere than you do from someone else's cigarette smoke.

Scumbag O'Riley
29th Jan 2009, 11:50
Parapunter stated:The medical arguments are unassailable.

I asked: Is there any medical evidence that second hand smoke is harmful to be found in peer reviewed papers, not propaganda from governments or other special interests?

SAS stated(Scumbag, there are plenty of peer reviewed medical papers about the danger of secondary smoke. There are also many papers that state secondary smoke isn't a danger, however they are usually funded by a certain Phillip Morris, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions. And I am sitting in front of a browser happy to click on any link you provide which demonstrates your claim.

SAS asked Or you could just use common sense and realise that if smoke is bad for the primary smoker, then how is it any different for the rest of us?)I don't know how it is different, that's why I asked for evidence. Common sense is often proven to be wrong, I am happy to believe in this instance it is proven to be correct.

If you provide meta data analysis papers then I will ask you why I should believe them when the original papers failed to prove a link. So I am after primary source data in the first instance that demonstrate that

The medical arguments are unassailable.

Cheers

419
29th Jan 2009, 12:00
So if the smokers have the same rights as non smokers, why do the smokers HAVE to go outside instead of making the non smokers sit outside?

Have to?
Is someone holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to go outside?, No. It's their choice to smoke.
For decades, if non smokers wanted to get away from the smell, they did have to go outside, now that it's switched around, the smokers are getting all bent out of shape.


Anyway, you breathe in far worse every day due to all these nice diesel engines everywhere than you do from someone else's cigarette smoke

I know that I breath in petrol/diesel fumes every day, but unless we want to revert to the 18th century with no cars, supermarkets, airports, electricity etc, it's a necessicary downside of modern life.

Even if there is no confirmed evidence that secondary smoke affects my health, it is confirmed and undeniable that it does make me stink, makes my clothing stink and makes my eyes and throat sore.
If I had a habit/hobby that had similar effects on others, I'm damm sure that they would soon start complaining about it.

denis555
29th Jan 2009, 12:22
1 ) Seperate smoking rooms , well ventilated = everyone happy

2 ) Staff only exposed when they come to clear up glasses, room well ventilated so what is the risk factor? ( they can even leave it till next morning to allow 8 hours for the 'killer fog' to disperse.

3 )Those pubs without seperate rooms would have to be non-smoking throughout.


Anybody object to this as a compromise?

As I understand it this was going to be the gist of the legislation until it got changed after the election and without notice.

ShyTorque
29th Jan 2009, 12:24
If I go to a pub and need a pee I go to the toilet, rather than spray it around everyone else. If I needed a cigarette I would also go to the approporiate place.

747 jock
29th Jan 2009, 12:52
1 ) Seperate smoking rooms , well ventilated = everyone happy

Anybody object to this as a compromise?

As I understand it this was going to be the gist of the legislation until it got changed after the election and without notice.

Which was exactly my point in post#56.

Bar owners and breweries knew that this legislation was being talked about and would be coming in, but how many of them made any decent effort to have proper segregated smoking/non smoking rooms? Around here, none that I can think of.

Instead they were quite happy to sit back and take their massive profits and hope that their lobbying would get the government to change their mind.
Once the law was enacted, then they started complaining, saying that they would have made separate room if they were asked to.

Yes, some pubs and bars might be losing money due to smokers staying away (and it could also be due to the global "credit crunch") but IMO, this will be a short term trend as it's only about 1 in 4 of the adult population is a smoker and the number is dropping all the time.

Once the non smokers start returning to the smoke free pubs the profits will start going up again.

Parapunter
29th Jan 2009, 12:54
Avitor, Say Again Slowly has good reason not to like substances that can cause cancer. You might wish to find out why he takes the position he does before handing it out.

The art of debate is disagreeing in civility my friend.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 12:57
Scumbag

As requested and please look very careful at the information source

Philip Morris International: the effects of secondhand smoke (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp)

I am very much looking forward to your respone :ok:

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 12:57
Avitor, Say Again Slowly has good reason not to like substances that can cause cancer. You might wish to find out why he takes the position he does before handing it out.

The art of debate is disagreeing in civility my friend.

I think you will, if you read it properly, come to the conclusion, my post was in reciprocation.
Thankful for the advice....not needed!

747 jock
29th Jan 2009, 13:13
Is there any medical evidence that second hand smoke is harmful to be found in peer reviewed papers, not propaganda from governments or other special interests?

How about this. (Tobacco control, which is a publication of the British medical journal). Not propaganda, merely a desire to save lives.
You will have to register, but any e-mail address will do,
and to meet your criteria " An international peer review journal for health professionals and others in tobacco control"

Tobacco Control (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/)

A couple of snippets from many articles. Just do a search for passive smoking.

OBJECTIVE.
To estimate the relative risk of stroke associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS, passive smoking)

RESULTS.
Information was available for 521 patients with first-ever acute stroke and 1851 community controls aged 35-74 years. After adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, history of hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes)

CONCLUSIONS.
This study is one of the few to investigate the association between passive smoking and the risk of acute stroke. We found a significantly increased risk of stroke in men and in women.



BACKGROUND.
Risks of lung cancer and of heart disease attributable to passive smoking have been evaluated mainly in non-smokers married to smokers

RESULTS.
There was a strong dose-response relation between cotinine concentrations in non-smoking adults and the smoking behaviour of their partners, rising from a geometric mean of 0.31 ng/ml in those with non-smoking partners to 1.99 ng/ml in those whose partners smoked 30 or more cigarettes per day

CONCLUSIONS.
If cotinine is taken as a measure of risk relevant dose, the implied increase in risk of lung cancer in non-smokers with smoking partners is consistent with the risk observed in epidemiological studies

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 13:17
Yes, that's the sort of rubbish Patricia Hewett peddled. And, no doubt financed.

Nothing at all to do with pub closures.

ShyTorque
29th Jan 2009, 13:23
If smokers wish the freedom to inflict a painful and highly unpleasant death on themselves, they should have the freedom to do just that, but why do some think they have a right to expect others to breathe in the by-products and have to risk the same fate? To accuse someone of having a chip on their shoulder about it is pathetic.

As a child at home I was subjected to constant secondhand smoke by my father. So was my mother; she slowly died of cancer in a terrible, agonised way that I was obliged to witness. My father lasted two years longer then she but then died very suddenly of another smoking related disease; quite unfair in a way. His mother, another smoker, also smoked herself into an early grave. Someone else I respect a lot has been recently diagnosed with throat cancer. His so-called "breathers" consisted of nipping outside for a cigarette...

I hope to avoid the same demise and therefore avoid rooms with cigarette smoke in them. I would have no objection to a pub or any other public building having a separate smoking room (they used to do so) but would expect it to have a proper ventilation system that didn't allow smoke to pollute the rest of the building. Failing that, I'd just walk out. I would rather pubs did have a separate room inside because these days one often has to "run the gauntlet" past rows of stinking smokers and their litter to even get into a pub or restaurant.

Davaar
29th Jan 2009, 13:29
Smokers will never be happy about the smoking ban and non-smokers will never give a sh*t!

Speak for yourself.

I am a non-smoker and I think the anti-smoking hysteria is exactly that: hysteria. I limit that comment to the "second-hand smoke" effect.

I have asked the non-smoking hysterists, including those at the local cancer society, over and over again for their evidence that second-hand smoke has any but the most inconsequential effect on the by-stander.

What is be the methodology of a study that concludes harm results? How do they distinguish between the effect, and especially any material effect, of a cigarette twenty yards upwind in the open air and the effect of endless heavy diesels in every street?

Just the other day some loony authority banned the smoking of a cigarette within 9 yards of any public PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well! Well! Busybodies of the world, Unite!

Scumbag O'Riley
29th Jan 2009, 13:29
You appear to be confused SAS :) In one post you say

There are also many papers that state secondary smoke isn't a danger, however they are usually funded by a certain Phillip Morris

in your next post you link to a Philip Morris site which says

Philip Morris International believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places

Also, you didn't provide anything 'As Requested' at all (or at least not by me). The Philip Morris page is written by a lawyer, not a doctor. Written no doubt in a means to limit any future punitive damages, or more than likely forced upon them in a settlement where Philip Morris accepted no blame, though paid out a shed load of cash as they are such good corporate citizens.

Even the links to reputable medical journals provide no concrete evidence that second hand smoke is harmful. Very wooly phrases indeed,

While essentially narrative rather than systematic and quantitative

conclude from the limited evidence

and

Areas requiring further research are identified which always means we believe it but cannot prove it and we hope somebody cleverer than us comes along and does so :)

And the use of the Odds Ratio. Well, the last desparate attempt of a statistician to find something useful to prove when other more robust methods have failed to do so.

For that is what I requested. Links to peer reviewed papers that demonstrate The medical arguments are unassailable. I am very much looking forward to your response :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 13:36
747 jock,

If you and other follow the link I previously posted, here it is again you will the even Philip Morris, the worlds biggest cigarette produced concede that secondhand smoking is bad for you.

Philip Morris International: the effects of secondhand smoke (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp)

If you also follow the second link you will see what Philip Morris think about the drugs they are peddling to their users

Philip Morris International: health effects of smoking (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Health_effects.asp)

If anyone ever needed conclusive evidence about the virtues of one of the most addictive drugs in circulation today then surely this is sufficient............or is this just more Govt spin :rolleyes:

747 jock
29th Jan 2009, 13:36
Nothing at all to do with pub closures

Nothing?
Not according to CAMRA, the scottish pub trade associations, and the British pub association. But then again, what would they know?


Over 250 pubs and clubs will close in Scotland in the next five years, according to a leading industry figure.

"Superpubs" - pubs capable of holding up to 1000 people - are cited as the cause of so many local pubs going under.

Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association said that superpubs have put local bars in danger of closing

pubs in the South West are threatened by cheap alcohol in supermarkets, the smoking ban and the credit crunch, says the British Beer and Pub Association.

CAMRA claims that increases in beer taxes, competition from supermarkets and the current economic crisis may see as many as 7,500 pubs shut by the end of 2012.

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 13:56
Nothing?
Not according to CAMRA, the scottish pub trade associations, and the British pub association. But then again, what would they know?

It's a circular argument innit! Not getting any of us anywhere. :)

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 13:58
Scumbag,

You asked

"And I am sitting in front of a browser happy to click on any link you provide which demonstrates your claim."

Philip Morris International: the effects of secondhand smoke (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp)

WHO | Second-hand tobacco smoke (http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/en/index.html)

Health Effects | Smoke-free Homes Program | Indoor Air | Air | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/ets/healtheffects.html)

Cancer Research UK : Second-hand or passive smoke is a proven cause of lung cancer and heart disease, and contains many dangerous chemicals. (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokeispoison/poisonoussmoke/secondhandsmoke/)

Smoking and Others (Passive Smoking) (http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27001049/)


I would have thought that if the the main suppliers of your drugs, Philip Morris agreed with the conclusions of all the medical links on their site it might just have given you a tiny clue about what you are arguing for

Oh and here is what your drug supplier thinks about his product

Philip Morris International: health effects of smoking (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Health_effects.asp)

and despite your dealer telling you just how deadly his product is you will still try to justify it's use....................go figure :rolleyes:

Scumbag O'Riley
29th Jan 2009, 14:04
Seldomfitforpurpose

I doubt you would recognise a peer reviewed paper if it hit you in the face :ugh:

Here is an example of what I am looking for, a 2003 paper in the BMJ.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Unfortunately it concludes:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Has anybody got anything better?

Why do you think I am a smoker?

denis555
29th Jan 2009, 14:11
747 Jock

Maybe CAMRA are concentrating on changing legislation on diverting tax burdens to supermarket sales since the chances of overturning the smoking ban are slim.

Heres what Camra said in July 2008

CAMRA A year on from smoking ban in England and Wales the volume of beer sold in pubs is down by 8%. The impact of the smoking ban, the promotion of cheap supermarket alcohol and economic uncertainty mean that many pubs are under pressure. During 2007 CAMRA found that 57 pubs a month were bulldozed or converted into other uses.


and the BBPA in April

Rob Hayward, Chief Executive of the BBPA, said: “Britain’s pubs are grappling with spiralling costs, sinking sales, fragile consumer confidence and the impact of the smoking ban.

As you say CAMRA and the BBPA should know what they are talking about!

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 14:12
Dangers of smoking!
Have a gander at this lot.....

Nasty Tropical Diseases - - Pictures - Travel - Virgin Media (http://www.virginmedia.com/travel/destinations/features/nasty-tropical-diseases.php?vmsrc=vmhpld)

747 jock
29th Jan 2009, 15:39
denis, could you refer me to my post where I said that the smoking ban had no effect on pub takings. What I actually stated was

Yes, some pubs and bars might be losing money due to smokers staying away
and I also stated that it might be due to other reasons, an argument which is still backed up by the quotes you posted, and therefore backed up by CAMRA and the BBPA.

the impact of the smoking ban, the promotion of cheap supermarket alcohol and economic uncertainty mean that many pubs are under pressure

Britain’s pubs are grappling with [U]spiralling costs, sinking sales, fragile consumer confidence and the impact of the smoking ban

With the current worldwide recession, industries and shops closing down on a daily basis, interest rates at an all time low (leading to income from savings also at an all time low), and people in general having far less disposable income than in the past few years, it's naive to think that this will not have any effect on pubs.

If shops and industries, both big and small are failing because of this, why should pubs be any different, and to use the smoking ban as the sole reason can't be justified or proven.

747 jock
29th Jan 2009, 15:49
scumbag.. You posted

Seldomfitforpurpose

I doubt you would recognise a peer reviewed paper if it hit you in the face

How about the link I supplied for "Tobacco control", which is

" An international peer review journal for health professionals and others in tobacco control"

And for me, the recent quote you gave sums up the pro/anti smoking in public debate perfectly.


although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed


A small effect. I don't care how small an effect it may have on me. If I wanted any effect from cancer causing chemicals in my lungs, I would choose to smoke.
And nowhere do they say environmental smoke won't affect me. All that they say is that its effects may be weaker than generally believed. (May be. In other words, they don't know)

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 15:50
Scumbag, you might find reading difficult through a fug of smoke, but I'll think you'll find that it was not I who posted the Phillip Morris link.

Avitor.............You simply aren't worth the effort. Especially as you can't even seem to be bothered to read my replies properly.

Pubs are dying off, but there are a load more issues involved than simply blaming the smoking ban. That is far too simplistic. It may not have helped in some cases, but to blame it all on that is simply absurd.

the British Beer & Pub Association blames mounting costs, sinking sales, fragile consumer confidence and the smoking ban, as well as cheap supermarket beer and the growth in home entertainment. Meanwhile the whole industry changed following the 1989 Beer Orders that led to the hiving off of vast pub estates and the creation of specialist pub companies.

I think they know more about than any of us here, don't you?

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 15:55
Mr O'Riley,

The great thing about the BMJ is it's objectivity so maybe you would like to peruse these reports which I assume are up to the spec you require bearing in mind your doubt on my ability to research in this field

Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis -- Jamrozik 330 (7495): 812 -- BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=passive+smoking&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/200?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=passive+smoking&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/200?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=passive+smoking&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

I must admit I did find the results and conclusion in the first link one quite shocking and would be interested in your thoughts

Results Across the United Kingdom as a whole, passive smoking at work is likely to be responsible for the deaths of more than two employed people per working day (617 deaths per year), including 54 deaths in the hospitality industry each year. Each year passive smoking at home might account for another 2700 deaths in persons aged 20-64 years and 8000 deaths among people aged http://www.bmj.com/math/ge.gif 65.

Conclusion Exposure at work might contribute up to one fifth of all deaths from passive smoking in the general population aged 20-64 years, and up to half of such deaths among employees of the hospitality industry. Adoption of smoke free policies in all workplaces and reductions in the general prevalence of active smoking would lead to substantial reductions in these avoidable deaths.

Storminnorm
29th Jan 2009, 16:00
Dear Lord, I'm getting fed up with this stupid thread. Bye Bye.
Off for a pint. (Smoke Free).

forget
29th Jan 2009, 16:05
World Health Organisation
In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all. :hmm:

Passive Smoking (http://www.forestonline.org/output/passive-smoking.aspx)

One of the few scientists who managed to publicise attempts to measure significant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke - in Swedish homes - was a toxicologist, Professor Robert Nilsson. Nilsson quoted findings that showed that non-smokers who consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke are smoking the equivalent of one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year.

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 16:20
It's funny how many people I've met over the last year who didn't smoke and yet had lung cancer. A fair few of them used to spend a lot of time in pubs. Is that significant? Not really.

However, there are a few problems with trying to pin down a cause of lung cancer or any other kind. The Doc's simply don't know most of the time. In my case they have no idea what caused it, they can make an educated guess, but that's all it will be.

So it is always going to be difficult to pin down exact numbers. With smokers and lung cancer it is easy, but with non-smokers it is always going to be more difficult.

This is why the medical profession will tell you that smoking etc will increase your risk of getting cancer, it doesn't necessarily cause it in every case.

So the numbers will always be on the low side for something like this, as only proven cases will be used. The real extent of the problem can often be masked.

It's a bit like the MRSA debate. We seem to have more of it than other countries, but in reality it's because in the UK it is purposely looked for, whilst elsewhere it isn't. So stats comparing infection rates are meaningless.

Scumbag O'Riley
29th Jan 2009, 16:30
Well done, seldomfitforpurpose, we are getting there. I will take a look and report back. First impressions are it's not a very robust paper, but I will print it off and read it later tonight. I would also have to read the bibliography in better detail, some of them do not fit into my definition of authoritative journals, some are even published by the goverment!!!

You still haven't told me how you know I smoke.

Sorry, SAS, got a bit confused there in the thick of things. You both have names which start with S which is too much for me. You also suggested I am a smoker, how do you know that?

Strange that somebody who simply asks for evidence is immediately considered biased. Well maybe not, it's an internet board.....

I am quite open to the possibility my opinion will be changed. Shame that cannot be said about some of the others.

747Jock. A nice bit of editing of the whole paragraph I quoted to completely change the meaning. I may get names mixed up, but I am smart enough to spot that sort of trickery!

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 16:40
Mr Oriel,

Not sure where I accused you or anyone else for that matter of being a smoker, but if I caused any offence I humbly apologise :ouch:

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 16:46
I have my spies Mr. O'Reily, sneaky little blighters that they are.

I didn't suggest you smoke. I have no idea, I just made a comment on how you managed to mistake me for someone else.

denis555
29th Jan 2009, 16:57
Scumbag ,

if you do smoke please remember to inhale and then blow the smoke straight out of an open window.

Otherwise you may breathe your own smoke in and become a smoker and a secondary smoker at the same time!!!

This will surely double your chance of instant death.
Oh and I forgoy - you may have traces of the smoke on your clothes - breathe these in and you become a tertiary smoker- I'm afraid there's not much hope for you at all.

Davaar
29th Jan 2009, 17:58
the medical profession

With great respect, "the medical profession" means whatever you choose it to mean. Which physicians? On the basis of what data? Analysed and evaluated by whom?

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 18:22
In this case I'll use the example of my Haematologist and Oncologist. Two physicians of great reputation. One being the chairman of the Haematological society.

When he says things, then I listen to him. There aren't many who know more.

Avitor
29th Jan 2009, 18:28
In this case I'll use the example of my Haematologist and Oncologist. Two physicians of great reputation. One being the chairman of the Haematological society.

When he says things, then I listen to him. There aren't many who know more.

You're not doing too badly yourself. :}

Davaar
29th Jan 2009, 19:28
Two physicians of great reputation.

That's a sample of two. Do their reputations extend to epidemiology as well? By the way, I am myself not unacquainted with eminent oncologists. That adds nothing to my authority.

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 19:43
No, but the other eminent person in the trio that looked after me does. ie my father in law.

However this is a discussion on a flying website, not a peer reviewed publication to the medical profession. In this case I reckon their opinions are far more valid than anyone who has posted on this board.

I cannot think of anyone I'd rather ask about how people get a disease than a department head of a major hospital who specialises in that particular disease. They don't just treat the disease they research the thing too. I wouldn't question their knowledge on a subject like this as all I'd do is make myself look utterly foolish.

Honestly, if they don't know, then who on earth would?

ShyTorque
29th Jan 2009, 20:21
Smokers? But then the smoke gets in their eyes and ears and apparently affects their logic. :ugh:

Loose rivets
29th Jan 2009, 20:37
There was a bloke in our pub that'd sit and smoke from noon till teatime. He ran on beer, not eating for two or three days at a time. If I could catch him awake, I'd pester him to do some of the math for me re the gravity thing I'm always on about. Anyway, after a nap, he'd smoke and drink until midnight.

I'm painting the picture here, cos this kind of character is very pubby.

So popular was he with the management, that they saved the pipe-wash pints for him in the fridge. I'm not kidding, twas the beer that they put through after the cleaning stuff. Anyway, a manager finally took exception to his sleeping habits, and he finally got banned. Off he went to the pub up the road, and the whole place changed.

One I could not get me math tutoring, but two, the place smelled quite different. Really, totally different.

The years went by and the new manager let him back, knowing the sales would increase no doubt. Immediately I walked in, there was that acrid smell again. The sheer relentless hauling on the fags causing the smoke to soak into everything again. Thousands of quid on air cleaning thingies did not a jot. We even used to drag his stool so that he was under one.

Now he sits outside. Comes in from time to time and natters for a moment while he gets his beer, but then off again. A few fellow smokers join him, but usually can't stand the cold and come in or go home. But there he sits, sometimes covered in snow. Good old fags...

Davaar
29th Jan 2009, 20:38
Honestly, if they don't know, then who on earth would?

Who can tell? Lots of people, maybe.

In my work I often look at the medical opinions of eminent physicians, professors of this and that, and many are their uncertainties. The man for the plaintiff says "this", the man for the defendant says "that". "This" and "that" may be widely divergent.

If I say "show me" that implies no disrespect. I am entitled to ask. I have asked over and over and in vain for answers to my questions on the hazards implicit in second-hand smoke, and I am not going to be bullied by the fact that Dr Snodgrass is a good oncologist. I went to a good oncologist too with my first cancer and he loused it up royally. Very eminent chap, too.

He was not an epidemiologist either, as indeed appears also to be so with your chaps.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 20:44
Having had this discussion before none of what has been posted surprises me. As regards logic it simply melts away as soon as you ask a smoker about his/her addiction making sensible and rational debate impossible :confused:

gingernut
29th Jan 2009, 20:47
Sorry chaps, only picked up the argument on page 7, but I guess the argument, sorry debate, concerns the smoking ban, and the effect of passive smoking on health.

As one who, sadly:), looks at health evidence daily, here's my two'penneth worth.

-No, there isn't any evidence to say that passive smoking is bad for health.

-No, there isn't any evidence to say that passive smoking isn't bad for health.



-We can't design a reliable enough trial to test the argument. (It's not ethical)

-We have to rely on evidence/studies with less power of effect. (Anyone yet designed an RCT to test the effectiveness of parachutes?)

-"Expert opinion" is bottom of the pile in terms of demonstrating effect. (From an "expert) (Sorry SAS.)

My "gut" feeling, is that, yes, passive smoking is detrimental to health-forget the science- it makes sense:confused:

Davaar
29th Jan 2009, 20:52
As regards logic it simply melts away as soon as you ask a smoker about his/her addiction making sensible and rational debate impossible

Not so.

I am not a smoker and when I go to this authority, even going to their office in person, and ask I get prevarication in response. So do not patronise me with "the medical profession says". I am asking for evidence. If the case is all that clear the evidence must be abundant. No?

Richard Taylor
29th Jan 2009, 20:54
Mine Host in a pub at Keith, Banffshire has banned swearing in his Establishment after a punter was heard to swear 16 times in a minute.

I mean ban swearing? For FCUKS sake!!!!! :eek:

(He used to work on the rigs as well!!)

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 21:19
Davaar, I understand where you are coming from and the reasons for it. My point is simply that whilst there are obvious problems with "expert witnesses" if we all disregarded professional opinion, then absolutely stuff all would get done.

If I want an opinion on flying I'll ask a pilot (and get 3 opinions and a lot of ranting back), if I want to know about golf, then I'll ask a golfer.

Trawling through thousands of pages of frankly inconclusive data doesn't help anyone.

I'll give an example, as a flight instructor I taught using the theories of flat plate lift and Bernoulli's theorum. As an engineer I know the limitations of those concepts, but they get the point across and frankly we don't need to go into further depth.

The simple fact is that smoking is bad for you, so it is not beyond the wit of man to also draw the conclusion that secondary smoke is also not exactly beneficial for your health. Now this supposition would not stand up in a court of law, but since this isn't a court of law, then I'll stand by it.

As gingernut has put, there are many ways of collating data and coming to conclusions, but even tried and tested data can often be proved wrong years down the line. Science is like that. Nothing is proven, all theories are subject to test and as testing methods evolve, then things we believed become consigned to the dustbin, from flat earth theory to adverts on the TV telling you that smoking was good for you.

Nobody can conclusively say that secondary smoke will give you cancer or emphysema or any other kind of nasty disease. However the weight of opinion is that it increases your risk. I believe it to be true and I defy anyone to come up with data that supports the opposite view.

Life is often about risk management rather than absolutes. The risk of secondary smoke causing horrid diseases is enough to warrant it being banned in my opinion. I also think that the amount of nasties that are put out by your average diesel engine also warrant a ban. Just because one might be worse than the other doesn't mean we should give up and not try to do something about the lesser problem.

Ban swearing in a Scottish pub?????? There won't be much conversation then! I've heard entire conversations with nothing other than swear words being used and yet the participants seem to know exactly what they were talking about and were having a rare old time.

With that I'm off to my local pub to help prop up the local industry. If there was still smoking allowed. I would be staying here.

gingernut
29th Jan 2009, 21:24
one day perhaps we'll prove gravity doesn't work every time.


one day:)

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 21:26
Davaar,

Apologies if it sounded patronising as that was not my intention. I could continue to post links but you already have your medical opinion which you are content with, and I mean nothing disrespectful with that comment.

Gingernut gives us his thoughts which we can all draw our own conclusions from but what really does it for me is, as I said before the view of Philip Morris the worlds biggest manufacturer of cigarettes

Philip Morris International: the effects of secondhand smoke (http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp)

BlooMoo
29th Jan 2009, 22:16
-No, there isn't any evidence to say that passive smoking is bad for health.

-No, there isn't any evidence to say that passive smoking isn't bad for health.


Equally, and I assume you would agree,

-there isn't any evidence to say that passive smoking is good for health.

-there isn't any evidence to say that passive smoking isn't good for health.

Why not therefore say an equivalent statement like

- there isn't any evidence that passive smoking has any effect on health.

That might seem an over-rigorous way of analysing things but it is an example of where the 'expert-witness' angle falls down in so many fields.

Medics know their medical stuff and meteorologists know their meteorology stuff but neither know statistics or the mathematical theory that it relies on.

So much (not all but too much) of the 'scientific fact' that comes from a wide range of 'experts' these days is actually no more than a preconception (or worse a prejudice), reinforced with shabby and misleading spin based on a naive and too often only rudimentary understanding of the meaningful limits to how far statistical/mathematical theory actually supports their media-friendly headline conclusions.

Hockey puck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy) is one example of a more technical failure in this dept from the rock solid (ho-ho) scientific world of climate 'science'. Another is the Roy Meadow/Sally Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark) episode.

Just two high profile examples in completely unrelated fields of supposed expertise where the foundation of each argument, rather than the derivation of the data itself, is actually based on a layman-level statistical interpretation of said data rather than on the particular field of the so-called 'expert'.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 22:26
Or perhaps the equivalent statement could read

- there isn't any evidence that passive smoking does not have any effect on health........just a thought :ok:

Davaar
29th Jan 2009, 22:50
An irony in this is that I am a non-smoking teetotaller .... and here am I casting doubt on the Great Second Hand Smoke scam.

In an earlier unsent post I summarised one 4 volume 1000 page "chart" accumulated, specialist upon specialist, consultant upn consultant, over years of a patient's steady slide to the grave. The last resort was to plan a lung transplant. "Don't really know why, but we've tried everything else". The guy was dying and no one really knew why. Should they? Or not? Gees? Whaddaya think?

I can't go into detail lest the facts be recognised, but the patient had a minor minor minor minor but concealed condition. Nurse came along to do a routine clean up. "Oh look at that!". Cleaned the minor but concealed condition..

Patient felt better immediately. Back at work in a month. He was walking dead before that. He had had hundreds of hours of the most skilled and devoted care. No one was happier than the physicians, but they all made little notes, I do believe, in their practice notes: Check [ ] in case of future bafflement.

If the dilution of second hand smoke is as obvious as it often looks, and someone says that is just the way it appears to silly old you, s.o.y. is perfectly entitled to say: Pending further or better particulars, I don't believe that; and if you keep feeding me that baloney without data I'll begin to think you are a bit of a chancer too.

BlooMoo
29th Jan 2009, 23:00
Thankyou for demonstrating my point.

- there isn't any evidence that passive smoking does not have any effect on health

is equivalent to

- there isn't any evidence that passive smoking has any effect on health

You prefer the 1st version though because it provides a subliminal inference to the layman that the lack of evidence on one side of the argument implies a higher probability of the existence of evidence on the other side, if you're Tony Blair then job done really.

Evidence finding being the job of scientists - if they can't find it over there then it's therefore surely more likely they'll find it over here - kind of fallacy type stuff. Put simply, the evidence of a pattern not actually existing (even when presented with evidence of its non-existence) doesn't cross anyone's mind. Check out the math thread on the pythagoras stuff.

If you don't buy it yourself then stop spinning it. This is JetBlast, not some peer reviewed type of respectable scientific community crapola.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 23:17
Bloo,

It's not a question of spin it's an application of logic. If, as you say there is simply no evidence to support the passive smoking theory then I am completely at a loss as to why Philip Morris would take the stance they do :confused:

You are correct though when you say this is Jet Blast where the last time I looked, provided civility was maintained sensible adult debate was not only allowed but encouraged............which I thought this was :ok:

birrddog
29th Jan 2009, 23:28
As a (cigar) smoker I am more than happy that as a general rule places (bars, restaurants, work places, etc.) are smoke free, however, why us adults can not decided to deliberately go to a place where it is permitted to smoke, with suitable air filtration, and staff that have also accepted the risks, is beyond me.

Fortunately in NY we still have such places, and in London the options are either "outside" or in Westminster.

Maybe I should find a friendly 'Lord/Lady' and get a pass so I can go smoke and drink whiskey there?

Richo77
29th Jan 2009, 23:34
Some random points re the issue:

Remember their are always exceptions to any rule. My great granddad Poppa (whom i only knew as in infant) was raised as a shearer. Smoked and drank since the age of 10 im told and was seldom to be found without a fag tucked into the corner of his mouth. Fit as a Mallee Bull his whole life and died in a house fire trying to rescue someone at the grand old age of 93. - Okay he was probably smoking "role your owns" so not so harmful.

My granddad always smoked since before i can remember and yep, he died of cancer. Skin Cancer. Lungs were clean as a whistle and he smoked 16mg's (winfield reds). When it was discovered his body was riddled with the skin cancer the doctors told him to enjoy his smokes they would do no harm (ok, extreme case i know).

Personally i have smoked for 24odd years and having had a health check (including lungs) every couple of years can tell you im clean.

Yep, im a smoker. I know how most people perceive it and i will never enforce it on anyone else and will always try to distance myself from others (unless smokers)when smoking. Yep i started cause of peer pressure and a weak will. Yep i cant seem to stop cause i tell myself i enjoy it and ive got a weak will. Its an addiction, but its still my choice.

Im sorry but ive got to laugh at those ppruners who have compared smoking to people spitting in their face or peeing on them. Sorry mate, but if you're letting people blow smoke in your face, spit in your face or pee on you, then thats your problem not mine.

There is a Sydney Suburb called Mosman (very posh) where they have banned smoking just about everywhere, the street etc etc. Funny how the merchants in Mosman are still allowed to sell them though aint it?. Double standards abound methinks.

I dont hate the smoking ban, im all for it. If i want a smoke, i know what has to be done and im happy to do it. Hell, i dont even smoke in my own house although i do smoke outside of it.

Guess i dont have a point, there is no magic bullet for this one.

Say again s l o w l y
29th Jan 2009, 23:48
Unfortunately for all of us, no Doctor is perfect, no treatment guaranteed.

Your example patient Davaar, was extremely lucky. Not everyone gets better and often the Doc's don't have any more idea what's going on than you or I would.

The human body is simply too complex and our ability to fix it is very limited. As I've said before I'm extremely lucky to have had a condition where it was recognised properly, dealt with promptly and managed extremely well. Not to mention the fact that the disease responded in pretty much the way they expected.

Not everyone is that lucky and we have to all accept that the medical profession doesn't know it all. They know a lot, but much of what they do is often based on educated guess work and a "let's try this and see what happens" approach.

Most of the time it works, but not always.

Data can also be flawed and many conclusions that can be brought up are often disproved when better modelling or interpretation comes out.

I'm only a single individual with no specialist knowledge in the field of secondary smoke or cancer, so unless I decide to spend months of my life in devoted study of the subject, then silly old me will listen to people I consider to be experts and whilst I'll question them upto a point, the fact that people who know far more than I and that the general consensus seem to think that second hand smoke is bad for your health, then who am I to question that?

MMGW is slightly different. There is a lot of evidence to support the theory that it simply isn't happening and that there is no human signal in the data at all, despite what Al Gore says. The large document that he waved around claiming that there was consensus and that thousands of eminent climatologists agreed with him is looking very shonky indeed.

I don't see a similar level of counter evidence and opinion on the second hand smoke issue. If there was, then surely the fag companies at least would still be banging the drum, except they aren't anymore, as proven by the excerpts above from the Phillip Morris website.

I am a cynical s*d usually and I rarely take anything for granted without at least thinking. Hmmm, why was this conclusion reached, who does it benefit, who paid for the research. etc. In this case, I've taken the tin foil hat off and believe wholeheartedly in the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.

I couldn't give two hoots if people want to go out and kill themsleves with fags, that's their choice, what I don't think is acceptable is putting other people at risk because of their vice.

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Jan 2009, 23:52
Richo,

Oh yes you do have a point and it's a very refreshing one........and trust me there is not one iota of patronising in my opening line.

When you say

"I dont hate the smoking ban, im all for it. If i want a smoke, i know what has to be done and im happy to do it. Hell, i dont even smoke in my own house although i do smoke outside of it."

I know lots of folk who share that sentiment and it's that selfless approach that should be applauded, maybe a few in here could take a leaf out of your book on how to live with your fellow man :D

Overdrive
30th Jan 2009, 00:00
Still, when The Railway (Heatley), has to shut, you know the situation's dire.



Heatley near Lymm? One of my old haunts.

Richo77
30th Jan 2009, 00:01
Thanks Sffp, i know there's no patronising and im not trying to be a saint or the like, its just the way i am. I suppose it comes back to walking a mile in someone elses shoes.

BlooMoo
30th Jan 2009, 00:39
Seldom-etcetc...

Logic is good.

I wouldn't take much convincing that smoking is bad for one's health. Equally I wouldn't take much convincing that 2nd hand smoke is also bad for one's health. In both cases I use the term 'bad' rather than, say 'good' intentionally and with full awareness of my faculties - at least to me.;)

My point is about author-bias in terms of how statistical data is interpreted but more importantly how it is mis-represented by too many to give the impression of 'scientific-fact'.

Despite your points implying tobacco-smoke=poison, and I happen to agree with them on a purely technical basis, the subjects of degree, risk and choice aren't being covered by you in a sufficiently subjective or rigorous way to make me feel all warm and cosy.

To no doubt just me you sound more like a Mr Angry from Tunbridge-Wells who goes down the High-Rocks for a prawn cocktail once a fortnight for a no-conversation/no-laughs night out with the missus and don't see why anyone else shouldn't be satisfied with that.

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 00:49
Just to put your mind at ease. I've been out to the pub at least 4 times a week recently. I shall refrain from saying how much cash I've thrown behind the bar as frankly I don't want to think about it!

I love going to the pub and my pub going experience has been greatly enhanced by the smoking ban.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 01:29
Bloo,

My aged mind makes recollection a little difficult but someone did offer on here not so long back that the argument is lost once the need to resort to insult is required......................very sage advice methinks :ok:

BlooMoo
30th Jan 2009, 01:40
Hey, you started down that route seldom;) If you don't like the heat...

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 02:03
Love the heat, love the debate and love the fact that I can refrain from getting personal :ok:

Unless of course you have misconstrued my argument to date with some kind of collective personal attack you have me rather confused as to who I have insulted.......................:confused:

denis555
30th Jan 2009, 08:04
This subject always seems to get bogged down on the rights to smoke on one side and the right not to breathe other peoples smoke on the other, plus all the justifications/medical evidence ( or lack of ) /applications of logic in smoking (or lack of ).

As a rule non-smokers do not see it as an erosion of civil liberties or the triumph of the Nanny / PC state ( no matter how anti PC they are on other matters ).

I cannot understand this.

Labour was elected on a promise to ensure strict smoking and no smoking segregation in pubs, a happy ( and enforceable ) compromise.

Once in power they changed this to a total ban and when challenged they spun it to say that they had delivered MORE than promised ( like a doctor who tells you need a leg amputated and is proud that he needlessly hacked off both).

Both non smokers and smokers in segregated areas could have had a choice - now the state has taken away that choice from adults whose logic you may not agree with - but resent being forced unecessarily.

What next - a promise to restrict alcohol misuse (hooray!) that turns into a total ban (boo!) because the Nanny State is 'Proud to go further'?

hellsbrink
30th Jan 2009, 10:35
Ahhh, you've seen their cunning plan Denis. Like their same plan to interfere in every other part of your life. Thank god I moved here

Storminnorm
30th Jan 2009, 10:47
The ban on alcohol abuse is next in line I think. :ok:

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 11:09
Oh FFS! The smoking ban has been well recieved by the majority of the population. It has benefits to health and yet somehow it is still seen as an attack on civil liberties.

Honestly, this is prime tinfoil hat wearing nonsense.

Get this, segregated pubs don't work. Smoking is insidious and the stench pervades an entire building unless measures such as aircon and filtration systems are installed. Pubs won't do it, so therefore it gets banned. End of.

It may be a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but the pub trade did nothing to help the situation or offer compromises. So what do you think was going to happen?

Anyway, it isn't a ban on smoking in pubs, it's a ban on smoking in the workplace which encompasses a shedload more places than just pubs. No-one has argued that banning smoking in offices is a bad thing, so why are pubs different.

http://www.ilovebonnie.net/tinfoil-hat.jpg

tony draper
30th Jan 2009, 11:17
I think another good idea along with the smoking ban would be to have all privately owned motor vehicle governed down to 20 MPH maximum.
:E

Load Toad
30th Jan 2009, 11:23
The smoking ban has been well recieved by the majority of the population. It has benefits to health and yet somehow it is still seen as an attack on civil liberties.

Has it really been well received? OK - second hand smoking - can you advise the studies proving that second hand smoke causes illness and how was this link proven?

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 11:40
Oh good god, please tell me you have actually read this thread before contributing.

Could you advise me how smoking doesn't affect my health and could you provide me with at least 10 peer reviewed papers that confirm that the smoking ban has not had a positive effect on the health of pub workers.

No, didn't think so.

tony draper
30th Jan 2009, 11:49
I'm looking forward to the time when even less people are smoking,because in this country the smaller the minority you belong to apparently the louder your voice becomes and greater the say you have in how the country is run.
There will be a new word in the lexicon,
"I say old chap you can't say things like that! it's smokist"
:rolleyes:

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 12:02
SAS,

"Anyway, it isn't a ban on smoking in pubs, it's a ban on smoking in the workplace which encompasses a shedload more places than just pubs. No-one has argued that banning smoking in offices is a bad thing, so why are pubs different."

That really is the nub of the whole argument. Discussing secondary smoking in a forum like this very quickly turns into a circular argument which, because none of us are sufficiently scientifically minded, neither side can ever win.

One side will argue why have so many govt's heeded the advice of so many medical bodies and taken the action they have and why would the major cigarette manufactures publicly state their acceptance.

Whilst a quick google search will throw up one or two dated papers that question the validity of the passive smoking research, hence a complete impasse is reached.

But what you can do is try and apply some logic and common sense to the debate and ask questions that folk in here are qualified to answer even though the answers may make some a little uncomfortable.

If you accept the following points, and I would suggest no smoker would ever seek to argue them :-

To virtually every non smoker the smoke from cigarettes smells and tastes abhorrent.

In any concentration it inevitably leaves non smokers at worst, with sore throats and sore eyes and at best uncomfortable.

That it leaves it's smell and mark on everything it touches, clothes, hair, furniture, carpets, fittings etc etc.

We know that smokers accept the above because :-

No sensible and polite smoker would ever enter a smoker/non smokers home and light up without asking permission.

No sensible and polite smoker would ever get into a smoker/non smokers car and light up without asking for permission.

In fact no sensible and polite smoker would ever enter any smoker/non smokers office/place of work/private space and light up without asking for permission.

So what confuses the heck out of me and so many other folk is why, if smokers can be so considerate and fair minded in pretty much every other location, a pub should be treated in any other way :confused:

As I said this is a really simple question that, provided you leave the passive smoking/Orwellian march/human rights red herrings out of the equation is very simple to answer :ok:

Storminnorm
30th Jan 2009, 12:12
What I want to know is WHERE all these people are DOING
all this PASSIVE smoking?
Certainly NOT at work or down the Pub anymore.
It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Is there some secret venue that I've not heard of
where jostling crowds of non-smokers gather to
inhale the smoke emitted by a secretive group of
stained fingered tobacco addicts?
Anyone know where this is?

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 12:15
That's the issue Norm, folk are no longer doing it which is great :ok:

Scumbag O'Riley
30th Jan 2009, 12:25
Morning Seldomfitforpurpose,

I read the article you cited in defence of your position (which I assume is that "The medical arguments are unassailable" ) and I have to say it's very very wooly indeed! Lots of assumptions, statistical trickery much of which goes over my head I must admit, and some very very dodgy stuff indeed.

For example :

Though the data relating to passive smoking and cerebrovascular disease remain limited, I have accommodated this potential objection by recalculating the figures on the assumption that the relative risks for stroke and ischaemic heart disease are the same.

Hmmm.

Anyway, the article I cited, a prospective study of 30 odd thousand non smokers living with a smoker watched over 30 years showed no statistical increase in illness. I think that is a far more powerful message myself.

And, in my trade, I also know quite a few doctors and although they are a very smart bunch in general I would not take what an individual one of them says to be the truth by any stretch of the imagination.

But back to the subject. Some celebrity chef is reported to be charging a fiver a pint in his pub and believes that the work of the artisan brewer deserves this amount of cash. This of course translates to meaning the Chef deserves the cash as I am sure he isn't paying the brewer extra money for the raw material at all. Like the vast majority of landlords I am sure he only puts 9/10 of a pint in the glass so bumping the true price up to £5.56

The £5 pint has arrived - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/real_food/article5598779.ece)

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 12:39
Mr O'Riley

You know what they say about assumption :ok:

Have a look at post No 176 which gives you a better feel for the angle I am coming from. As I said before I have had this discussion before and once you break it down and ask really simple to answer questions it all suddenly becomes amazingly clear :ok:

Davaar
30th Jan 2009, 12:57
Long ago when the world was young and I was in the RN I was entitled to 300, I think it was, "Blue Liners" at a price of around 6/6 total per month.

I would buy them all, but not smoke them all. Some I'd give away. I had a silver cigarette case, although I never quite got down to "Virginian, this side; Turkish that side". The thought did cross my mind. Occasionally out of sheer uncontrollable wildness I'd buy a pack of Balkan Sobranie Black Russian. Hellish debonair or, if you prefer, Pseud. Still, I quite liked them. The aroma, you know.

The years rolled on and with them came the cigars and the pipe. "You get what you pay for!" is commonly said and often untrue, but it is wholly true in the case of your Havana leaf.

Elderly gentlemen smoked pipes or cigars, and it was a meet and seemly thing to do. They wore three-piece suits and carried tobacco-pouches in the waistcoat or weskit. The match, made of wood, was lit with deliberation. The gentlemen smelled of their chosen brand of tobacco. The cigar after dinner was an essential part of pleasure, as were for many the port or brandy, but these last not for me, given that I do not partake. Mind you, if you did, it did not trouble me. Go for it!

One did not much approve of the smoking by young women.

At the movie theatre the beam of light from the projector sliced through a genial swirl of smoke. Kinda neat. Life was good, but people were tough. The theatres were packed, but no one complained of sore eyes or any other problem. Amazing.

Now, you ask, was I content? I should have been, but yet I picked up bad habits. Looking back, I could see these began with my not smoking all my Blue Liners, for the time came when I began to backslide with the cigars too. At that time Tueros here cost 38 cents each (now around $6.00) so I had no excuse.

I'd find I was down to two Tueros or maybe three or four Reas Coronas or Petit Coronas in a day, and sometimes just the one (Tueros). No cause for alarm, of course. In fact I did not even notice. Insidious, that is the word I am looking for. Creeps up on you, as on that chap in the poem (“...... that on a lonesome road doth walk in fear and dread, and having once turned round walks on, and turns no more his head; because he knows a frightful fiend doth close behind him tread.").

Well, you know how it goes. Day follows day, year follows year, and before I knew it I was down to one a week, tops. Worse still, my taste had become depraved. I might even have been seen buying a pack of White Owls (remember the story about the three babies, the one on Gerbers, the other on Heinz, and the third sharing a t*t with a guy who smoked White Owls? No? Just as well).

Yes! I was well on the way to being a non-smoker, a sad habit that had caught me unawares, as they so often do. Unawares, but firmly.

Now I am confronted by neo-lay-religious fanatics, green, global-warming by the exhaust of my car, anti-smokers, anti-living, and it may be too late.

I do not repine. I am not a quitter. I can fight back. My problem is to overcome this pernicious habit of non-smoking that has me in its grip. Should I start gradually, a cigar here, an ounce of tobacco there? Or start cold turkey, buy the box of fifty Tueros or Reas right off (Yes! Yes! I know they are made in Canada, but the leaf is Cuban, and my tastes are modest) and just go for it?

Others must have trodden this path and would be willing to share their experience. Yes?

Scumbag O'Riley
30th Jan 2009, 13:06
Have a look at post No 176 Indeed Mr Seldom, and if you trawled back through my posts you would see what I think too.

Talking of the five pound pint. One memory that is engrained in my mind is getting a round of three pints in, handing over a fiver as was the normal procedure in those days and waited for the change, and the barman telling me it wasn't enough.

Happened in De Hems in Macclesfield St, three pints of orangeboom, must have been 1988.

One still has Post Traumatic Stress to this day.

tony draper
30th Jan 2009, 13:12
Hmmm,let me see Five pounds?,in my early drinking days that would have bought you 50 pints of Special(the good stuff) or near sixty pints of Ordinary Beer.

Load Toad
30th Jan 2009, 13:43
No, didn't think so.

So you can't answer that question?

I'll go along with smoking is 'bad' and I'll agree that second hand smoke MIGHT effect health. But I want to know how it was proven that it did so, under what scientific conditions and what other factors were considered such as but not restricted to age, sex, family history and other environmental factors. (I suggest looking at the sources used in the links given earlier in the thread and then comparing and contrasting to other studies which you will find are not quoted in the links but can be found by taking say Lung cancer risk and workplace exposure to environ...[Am J Public Health. 2007] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17267733) and looking at Inconsistency between workplace and spousal studie...[Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1994] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8090954?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubme d_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed) or even Environmental tobacco smoke revisited: the reliabi...[Risk Anal. 2001] - PubMed Result (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726024?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubme d_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed).

Sorry for wee weeing on your camp fire but there is hardly conclusive evidence is there?

Now assuming that the smoking ban in part is due to 'Health and Safety in the Workplace' and given there are many industries that have similar issues I'm interested why smoking is banned totally in the work place but say in a ceramics factory barrier protection or extraction equipment are OK where stuff like silica dust flys about?

Of course I will bow to your superior intellect and accept any information provided by parties that have a vested interest in a result one way or the other.


Like my arse. Show me the scientific proof that second hand smoke is bad and if it is explain why the other workplace options are not to be considered in the solution?

You see I read those links and they say things like 'concluded' and 'there is evidence' without actually telling me why they concluded and what the evidence is. The Cancer Research site lists various carcinogens that exist in 'sidestream smoke'. But - there are carcinogens in (and I will use a subject that I'm familiar with) the decorations used on glass and ceramics. But we are then talking about the degrees of risk.

Oh yeah - smoking smells bad.

So do farts incidentally.

Another thought that I will toss across the table. If smoking is addictive (I agree it could well be) then why aren't people who are non-smokers but who have previously worked in a smoke environment not turned into smokers when they can't get their fix of daily smoke.

denis555
30th Jan 2009, 14:36
Say it Again Slowly - Get this, segregated pubs don't work. Smoking is insidious and the stench pervades an entire building unless measures such as aircon and filtration systems are installed. Pubs won't do it, so therefore it gets banned. End of.


No Tin Foil wearing here old chum. One pub- two rooms - two doors seperate rooms = Only a bloodhound could smell tobacco smoke (or someone sniffing the door jams determined to) :ugh:


If you read my earlier posts you would have seen that I wasn't talking about open pubs - only those with seperate rooms. Ok there would be few pubs that could so this but at least smokers would have somewhere to puff without upsetting anyones lungs.

Thats all - end of - end of

Load Toad
30th Jan 2009, 14:51
Lets say it again loudly and with a touch of venom and self righteous spittle for good measure:

The fact you don't like the smell of something is not a reason for having it banned.

Frankly I've got a thing about people that can not handle their alcohol. I really despise people that have a drink - go out - maybe drive or use some sort of equipment and hurt others. I really hate alcohol vomit. I can not stand people who talk utter tosh when they've had a drink. I don't like people that get drunk and then try to dance when they can't. And don't get me started about people who drink and cause harm to their families, their wives...innocent bystanders in the kebab queue.

But I'm not looking to get beer banned. Or wine, or gin, or vodka - especially vodka.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 15:00
Load,

Before you self combust go have a look at my post 176 and let me know your thoughts :ok:

Mr O'Riley,

If you did read post 176 through any chance you could give me your thoughts and if possible an answer to the simple question I pose :ok:

bnt
30th Jan 2009, 15:22
I saw that Clarkson piece, and he's missed the point somewhat. Let the customers smoke to their hearts' (dis)content: the smoking ban has nothing to do with customers. It's all about the staff who work in pubs, because a pub is a workplace. "So", I hear some say, "if you don't smoke, don't work in a pub" - but that's not going to fly, because you don't always get to pick and choose jobs in that way. Besides, even smokers have the right to choose how much smoke they inhale, and when, and working in a smoky room takes that right away from them.

You can choose to accept a particular level of risk in anything you do - but you don't have a right to impose any level of risk on anyone else. I mean, do we really have to prove, beyond all semblance of a doubt, that not inhaling smoke is better for you than inhaling smoke?

Scumbag O'Riley
30th Jan 2009, 15:23
Seldom, You didn't ask a question in your post 176, however you did admit to confusion in this paragraph.

So what confuses the heck out of me and so many other folk is why, if smokers can be so considerate and fair minded in pretty much every other location, a pub should be treated in any other way

You might be less confused if you read what the pro-smoking-in-pubs posters posted in this thread. I shall summarise their argument for you, apologies to them if I have got it wrong.

1) It is legal to purchase cigarettes, therefore it should be legal to smoke them in a public place.

2) It is a legal right not to smoke in a pub, and it should therefore be a legal right to smoke in a pub

3) Smoking should be permitted in a separate room in a pub where where non smokers need not visit.

4) There is no evidence that second hand smoke is medically harmful, and you need evidence before restricting what is a legal pastime.

Apologies to others for repeating what has already been posted.

denis555
30th Jan 2009, 15:23
SeldomFitforpurpose,

I will answer them if I may;


If you accept the following points, and I would suggest no smoker would ever seek to argue them :-

To virtually every non smoker the smoke from cigarettes smells and tastes abhorrent.

True but you will be in a seperate room so why should you care?

In any concentration it inevitably leaves non smokers at worst, with sore throats and sore eyes and at best uncomfortable.

As above

That it leaves it's smell and mark on everything it touches, clothes, hair, furniture, carpets, fittings etc etc.

It won't affect you, doesn't bother the smokers and the pub is glad of the custom

Now a question for you Seldomfit - can we get back to allowing seperate, non-staffed and well ventilated smoking rooms in those pubs that can accomodate them?

frostbite
30th Jan 2009, 15:33
IIRC you can blame the Conservatives for the total ban. The legislation that NL wanted to bring in was indeed for segregated smoking/non-smoking areas, amazingly sensible for NL.

Nice post, Davaar.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 15:45
Dennis,

That would have my complete and unconditional support :ok:

Mr O'Riley,

Try to stop being so disingenuous as the question is really simple, but if you want to play the spin game then consider this

1) It is legal to purchase cigarettes, therefore it should be legal to smoke them in a public place which should include any other persons home, car, office etc etc

2) It is a legal right not to smoke in a pub, and it should therefore be a legal right to smoke in a pub or any other persons home, car, office etc etc

3) Smoking should be permitted in a separate room in a pub where where non smokers need not visit :ok:

4) Whilst There is no evidence that second hand smoke is medically harmful, and you need evidence before restricting what is a legal pastime, there is no evidence to prove that second hand smoking is not medically harmful. As we already know there is overwhelming evidence about the medically harmful effects of primary smoking should we not take sensible precautions with regards to passive smoking until irrefutable proof is provided one way or the other

But to simplify things the question I asked was

If smokers can be so considerate and polite about smoking in others peoples homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc why is extending that consideration to the pub such an issue...............:confused:

Load Toad
30th Jan 2009, 15:47
Dear sffp,

re. post 176.

So what?

Given there is no evidence that second hand smoke is anything other than smelly and irritating I see no reason why if a smoking room can be provided in a pub it can not be so arranged and I can not understand if a no smoking room is available (or a smoking pub a non smoking pub - whatever) and if barrier and extraction or choice of employment are available why the fluffing 'ell choice is not bleedin' allowed?

Maybe it is more a case of legal action threat and / or the interfering nanny state.

But - why should I be allowed to smoke in a venue where smoking is allowed? Because if it is allowed and I want to do it I will do it. I don't mind people drinking Pernod though I find the stuff nauseating myself.

The smoking ban will not stop people dying nor will it stop people getting ill. At some point, like it or not you will have a bunch of cells decide to go troppoh and you will die, sometimes peacefully in a nice bed surrounded by loving family - at other times lying for years alone in agony in wee, pooh and vomitus bereft of your sensibilities - cos that happens sometimes.

And so - when the mood takes me - I will have a drink, a cigarette...er some other stuff...whatever... because if I'm not harming anyone else - or they accept the risk of being there - it is my life and not to be dictated to by some feckless politician with testicles the size of pomegranate seeds.

Load Toad
30th Jan 2009, 15:51
there is no evidence to prove that second hand smoking is not medically harmful

There is no evidence that there is a god - I do not have to prove that something doesn't exist - you have to prove it does.

It is not 'bad manners' or naughty or inconsiderate to do a drug in a place where it is legal to do so.

Scumbag O'Riley
30th Jan 2009, 15:52
I don't know why you are having a go at me seldomfitforpurpose. I am merely the messenger, summarising what others have said because you cannot be bothered to look it up yourself. If you bothered to look at my posts, read them and understand them, you would know exactly where I stand.

Let me help you out.

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/359750-dying-pubs-5.html#post4680651

Toodle Pip.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 15:55
Load,

But to simplify things the question I asked was

If smokers can be so considerate and polite about smoking in others peoples homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc why is extending that consideration to the pub such an issue...............http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Leaving all the rhetoric to one side just satisfy my curiosity with an answer to the above question :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 15:58
Mr O'Riley

Not having a go Sir, in fact quite the opposite as I value your opinion but please tell me you are not copping out on such a simple question :eek:

Load Toad
30th Jan 2009, 16:16
Because sffp a pub is a room in a building where class, income and upbringing should be checked at the door and tolerance and respect should go hand in hand with humour, debate and mateship.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 16:31
Load,

I agree wholeheartedly and can find no fault with your sentiment but what I actually asked was

If smokers can be so considerate and polite about smoking in others peoples homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc why is extending that consideration to the pub such an issue...............http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

hellsbrink
30th Jan 2009, 16:34
Load,

But to simplify things the question I asked was

If smokers can be so considerate and polite about smoking in others peoples homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc why is extending that consideration to the pub such an issue...............http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Leaving all the rhetoric to one side just satisfy my curiosity with an answer to the above question http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


We'll answer the question when you realise that "other people's homes/cars/offices/personal space etc etc" are NOT a PUBLIC PLACE WHERE ANYONE CAN ENTER, which a PUBLIC BAR actually IS.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 16:53
Not quite sure where I introduced the distinction between public and private places but I will amend the question accordingly and it will still be as simple to answer.................well it should be :ok:

If, knowing the potential but not proven effect smoking may have on other non smoking individuals well being and because of the real effect smoking will have on peoples property and possesions why are smokers so polite and considerate about smoking in others peoples homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc but find extending that consideration to the pub, for some smokers to be such an issue...............http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 16:57
I've just read through this thread and I have to say I am laughing out loud.

I think I and my generation generally couldn't give two hoots about this. I nor any of my friends (many of whom smoke) do not see this as an erosion of civil liberties, but of a simple bit of good legislation that makes going out a more enjoyable experience.

No longer do I have to worry about getting stabbed in the arm by a whirling dervish with a lit cigarette when dancing in a nightclub. (Mrs SAS has a large burn on her arm where she was accidentally stabbed by a large cigar on a dance floor.) Nor do I have to worry about having to have a shower when I get home to wash the reek of cigarettes out of my hair. (Now it has started to grow back.)

You can clamour all you like about how this is wrong, but the simple fact is that something you enjoy has been made more difficult. I understand why you'd be upset at that, but conversely I find this to be a good thing for me, so you need to understand why I would be happy that I no longer have to put up with smoke.

Davaar makes the point that in the days of yore, nobody complained about the fug of smoke and there are many reasons for it.
Firstly, the majority smoked so people who did complain got shouted down.
Secondly, because it was legal and usual to smoke everywhere, then those who didn't smoke put up with it. That is not to say that people didn't mind or found it disgusting, they just didn't vocalise their opinion. Nowadays we do and you see the result.
Thirdly, people didn't realise quite what a silly habit it was. I for one used to enjoy smoking as I'm sure others do, but eventually and especially today when we know the effect of smoking on the human body (and we do know very well before anyone else starts with "show me the evidence") once you get out of that rebellious phase you start to think, why am I smoking? Do I want to die horribly and painfully rather than at the wheel of a fast car surrounded by beautiful women of suspect virtue?

I know what I'd prefer and having seen people die from lung cancer, then frankly anyone who smokes is an utter fool, however I respect your right to do it, though you must respect my right to thinking you are utter mentalists.

I will ask one question to those who think smoking in pubs is a good thing.

Would you smoke in the same room as baby or small child? If not, why not?

hellsbrink
30th Jan 2009, 17:02
And what about the POTENTIAL damage an unhealthy diet can cause? Or the POTENTIAL damage from drinking more than what some eejit says is the "safe" limit of alcohol per week? Or the POTENTIAL damage caused by inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes? Or knives, as you can easily harm yourself if one slips when you are chopping up an onion? Will you ban all of them too?

You see, until there is actual PROOF that second hand smoke actually harms others (both my parents smoked like chimneys when I was a kid, I smoke, and every xray/scan/medical/etc has given me a 100% clean bill of health but according to you I should be dead after inhaling so much first and second hand smoke over the last almost-41 years) then it should not be banned in PUBLIC places unless you are going to ban every other potentially harmful thing out there.

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 17:13
Rubbish. If I eat an unhealthy diet, that is MY choice. If I choose to play chicken with express trains, that is MY choice. If I choose to smoke 50 fags an hour, that is MY choice.

If I go to work and have to stand in YOUR smoke, where's MY choice.

Isn't enough proof? I'll ask you again, would you put your 2 year old son or daughter into a smoky room and eave them all day? If secondary smoke is as harmless as you obviously believe, then it shouldn't be an issue should it.

Just to make something clear, smoking has not been banned in public, it has been banned inside, you are free to go out into public places and smoke, they just can't have more than 3 doors and a roof on them.

Forkandles
30th Jan 2009, 17:23
Sas, the law says you have to be 16 to smoke, therefore not only is this 2 year old freeloading off MY cigarette smoke, but some do gooder will probably report me to the police and I'll end up being nicked for supplying!

Apart from that, Proctor & Gamble had a shitload of monkeys and beagles on 60+ a day for yonks, but I never noticed a dog or monkey ward at Christies. Proof enough, I think you'll agree. :E

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 17:25
Absolutely, those darn Beagles, getting free fags and drugs whilst everyone else has to pay for it. Little blighters. I hear rabbits get free cosmetics, that has thoroughly annoyed my wife.

bnt
30th Jan 2009, 17:34
hellsbrink - I can only repeat my point from before, explaining the difference between taking risk upon yourself, and imposing it on others. Of all the examples you gave, only one falls in to the latter category, and so you won't be surprised to hear that there are already strict regulations about car exhausts, and they are getting stricter.

If it were possible to ban simply drinking to excess - in a simple, logical, consistent fashion - I might vote for that, since there's a correlation between excessive drinking and domestic violence. However, that's just not possible, considering how variable people are in their ability to handle drink, and how "excessive" can change over time. (In that Sunday Times piece, Jeremy Clarkson describes his "moderate" drinking, and I don't know whether to take him seriously or not: a bottle of wine in an evening, plus a shot of vodka at bedtime, would leave me seriously hungover for the whole of the next day.)

I'm about as much a fan of "Health and Safety" as Stephen Fry is - not much (http://www.stephenfry.com/media/audio/5/episode-5--compliance-defiance) - but when a risk to others is easily avoidable, it just makes sense to avoid it. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 17:40
Hells,

I can see you still have a problem with the question so I will amend it again for you, it will still be simple to answer :ok:

If, because of the real and undeniable effect smoking will have on peoples property, possessions and clothing etc smokers can be so polite and considerate about smoking in others peoples homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc why is it that extending that same consideration to the pub, for some smokers becomes such an issue...............http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

There, nothing contentious in there at all now so I take it I can expect a simple and straight forward answer :ok:

airfoilmod
30th Jan 2009, 17:57
The passion one obseves in a discussion of this sort, lies a conclusion I made long ago re: politics, faith, bad habits, etc.

Pubs attract people who drink; of these are probably those who shouldn't.

Of these, some are quite vocal re: "freedom" when that isn't the issue.

Same with smoking. Invariably there are those in the debate who are very vocal about "freedom". If that is the issue, then others are free to "disagree", certainly when it is their freedom at issue.

Ex bartender here, ex drinker, ex smoker. Many people confuse judgment with discernment, thinks I.

AF

Lon More
30th Jan 2009, 17:58
Straying even further off-thread; do any of the smokers protest about not being allowed to smoke on an aicraft, or any other form of transport?


Maybe binge drinking is what is killing off some pubs. The bars where this is possible are doing a roaring trade; pubs that cater more to a traditional clientele are losing out.

hellsbrink
30th Jan 2009, 18:06
Seldom, you are still not seeing how there is a difference between a public and private place. YOU choose to go to the PUBLIC place and behave as YOU see fit, so why should others have to be restricted to suit YOU? Why should others have to suffer because of YOUR view, and why should they have to suffer from the sanctimonius BS you would no doubt have spouted in the past because YOU CHOSE to stand beside someone who smoked? After all, nobody forced you to go into a pub, nobody asked you to stand in that atmosphere, nobody said you had to stand beside that person. Why should others lose their liberties just to suit a small minded idiot who believes the world revolves around him?

BNT, again you CHOSE to take that ALLEGED risk in the same way as I chose to smoke tobacco knowing the POTENTIAL risk involved. Why should I be denied MY choice to suit you?

SAS, the 2 year old in a smoke filled room was me and it did me no harm. My sister's youngest kid's asthma EASED when she was in a room where people smoked (aged 4) and the same has gone for my sister in law's oldest (now 18). Now, if you walk into a pub where people smoke, that is your CHOICE, same as it is the CHOICE of those when they smoke. Why should YOUR CHOICE suddenly be more important than mine when there is absolutely no evidence to prove that you are in any danger whatsoever? After all, your aftershave or your SO's perfume may be absolutely pungent and could end up contaminating my clothing (it has happened because of one dopey bint) but I wouldn't force you outside for that reason, I would choose to go elsewhare where it wasn't so bad. That is my CHOICE so why can't you realise that you are making a CHOICE by going into that atmosphere, same as standing in the queue in a chip shop will make your clothes stink of the place yet you wouldn't ban your local chip shop, would you. After all, that is the same thing that people are now whining about, the smell.

Oh, one last thing. The distinction I was making between "public" and "private" is the difference between places like a person's house and a bar. You don't have every joey walking into your house but they do walk into a bar. That is what I mean, no matter what that BS law states (because rail stations do NOT generally have a roof and 3 doors but that law has been used to ban smoking on the platforms, as I am led to believe, and I do not mean London Underground where smoking was banned for other reasons)

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 18:22
Oh the old "Did me no harm". The cornerstone of all good rational arguments.

How do you know it did you no harm? Who's to say you wouldn't have lungs like Lance Armstrong instead of the pair you have today had you not been subjected to smoke.

So you are honestly saying that you'd happily put your child in a smoky room?

I'm not going to bother anymore. This argument has no end. I think this ban on smoking in the workplace is good and it suits me as someone who dislikes sitting in smoky rooms. (I didn't like it even when I did smoke) Others have their opinion and think it is an attack on their freedoms blah, blah, blah.

Never the twain shall meet, but fortunately for me and the majority of the UK population, the ban is in place, so all the halooing and chest thumping is frankly about as much use as a nuclear powered computer controlled intercontinental ballistic duck.

We won, get over it. ;)

Solid Rust Twotter
30th Jan 2009, 18:42
Why should I have to leave a pub because you choose to walk in, stand next to me and light up?

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 18:49
Hells,

I will try rephrasing it again to see if we can entice a direct answer from you.

If fully accepting that there are definite differences, rules and regulations between public and private venues, but because of the real and undeniable effect smoking will have on peoples property, possessions and clothing etc why is it that smokers can be so polite and considerate about smoking in the homes/cars/office/personal space etc etc of people they know and often cherish yet for some unexplainable reason some smoker find it impossible to extend that same consideration and common courtesy to the strangers they encounter in a pub...............http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Give that a try :ok:

Davaar
30th Jan 2009, 19:03
Secondly, because it was legal and usual to smoke everywhere, then those who didn't smoke put up with it. That is not to say that people didn't mind or found it disgusting, they just didn't vocalise their opinion.

Well, not really. As the Don said at Oxford, none of us knows everything, not even the youngest.

Travel by train or ferry in the 1930s and 1940s in the Victorian hardware everywhere still in servce and at ferry terminals and railway stations there were smoking and non-smoking saloons and compartments, and often ladies' saloons too where rauchen was streng verboten. Rarely did I see anyone light up in a non-smoker, even during the war, and if one did it was invariably with the question "Did anyone object?"

I have seen exactly that dialogue, when someone did object, and the smoker invariably desisted.

I can almost put a date on one occasion in the 1940s when I was but a teenager en route to school by train in a non-smoker. Teenage boys are a class of humanity by definition almost asking for a smack up the side of the head no matter what.

Some frolicsome village maidens got on at a station and lit up. One of our group of very identifiable obnoxosities in school uniform asked them please to stop because one of us suffered from asthma. I did think we were cruisin' for a bruisin', but they laughed and butted out.

Of course at that time most of us had something real to worry about, like Dad maybe not coming home again or some ill-disposed Germans dropping bombs on the old homestead.

Seldomfitforpurpose
30th Jan 2009, 19:05
SAS,

You and I and and most every non smoker know that any polite, sensible and informed smoker, and I firmly believe all those contributing to this thread fall into that category would never ever expose his/her kith and kin to the risks you suggest. Which is precisely what I have been alluding to throughout this thread.

None of the guys posting on here would ever consider smoking in the nursery of their new born baby/grand child etc.

None of the guys posting on here would ever consider smoking at the dinner table with their non smoking family and friends. Or whilst sat with their kids/grand kids etc watching a movie or doing homework and the like.

None of the guys in here would ever consider smoking in the car whilst driving with their kids/grand kids/kids friends etc etc

All I have asked is why, when you consider the above do some smokers have issues with according complete strangers the same level of consideration and courtesy :confused:

Say again s l o w l y
30th Jan 2009, 19:18
Against a background of war and potential imminent death, then much of modern life seems facile and unimportant. Why worry about cancer when you might get a 500lb bomb on the noggin.

However, we aren't in imminent danger of Jerry dropping high explosives on our head anymore and anyway this is now not then. Life and all things to do with it change. You might not like it, but it happens. There are many things that might erk me or annoy me in modern society, but generally, I'd rather be alive now than then.

In fact given what happened to me last year, then if I had been alive then, I wouldn't be alive now (if you understand my meaning!)

Modern society has much going for it and things will constantly change as we learn new things.

If we knew then what we know now, do you think that the workplace smoking ban would have taken as long as it did to come to law? I doubt it.

Davaar
30th Jan 2009, 19:52
potential imminent death

Each of us is always in a state of potential imminent death. I concur in a whole lot of what is written above about good manners, but good manners existed even in the 19th century, and so did smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms. To get back to the beginning, I have yet to see, despite quite direct inquiry at the Canadian Cancer Society and other like institutions anything that persuades me they have any solid backing for the anti second hand smoke dogma.

Indeed I was in two different parts of the country chairman of the local branch of the CCS (and at those two we built hospices) but now I am sceptical about its work. It devotes very considerable resources to anti-second hand smoke. That looks good, and they go to conferences, and talk yet more about this dogmatic carcinogenic hazard. Not with my money any more. I do not believe it.

CATIII-NDB
30th Jan 2009, 19:59
Pubs are dying because they have in many cases lost their local character (sometimes not a bad thing) - I think we have all been in a pub where instead of having a quite pint and eats, some one somewhere kicks off and mayham insues. The social attitudes to drinking have changed - Its no longer a place for a pint, chat and somrthing to eat. it's the lets get pissed culture that has desroyed pubs, not the smoking ban. Glitz, beaten copper and the smell of stale piss. No thanks.

Cat III

tony draper
30th Jan 2009, 20:10
Hmmm, giving the matter some thought it could be the recent generations have become overwhelmed by obesity because the fat bastards were not encouraged to smoke when the were 12 like us.
:E

BOFH
30th Jan 2009, 23:35
SfP

What utter twaddle.

You clearly have no grasp of the scientific method (i.e., you assumed, a priori, that your statement was true having made it). You never made any attempt to disprove your hypothesis.

It was not quite so long ago that it was quite normal, as non-smokers, to suggest to smokers to light up when visiting. I still do, because I was brought up to be a host and not some hypochondriac lickspittle. Maybe my family was too old-fashioned (i.e., middle-class and not parvenu).

It was not quite so long ago (and thankfully, that continues) that you may smoke in the presence of children. We drink in front of them, we drive cars, we have bills to pay, we're adults, damn it.

None of the guys posting on here would ever consider smoking at the dinner table with their non smoking family and friends. Or whilst sat [sic] with their kids/grand kids etc watching a movie or doing homework and the like.

Fallacy.

BOFH

Forkandles
31st Jan 2009, 00:07
Rear Admiral Draper, and I don't mean that in a gay way, I think you are bob feckin' on.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Jan 2009, 00:21
Bof or any other smoker,

Are you seriously telling us that it is perfectly natural, socially acceptable and presents absolutely no risk what so ever to smoke in the presence of your kids/grand kids/any other kids at any time, any location and for any duration :eek:

I doubt very much I will ever ever receive a direct and succinct answer to that question :(

G-CPTN
31st Jan 2009, 00:29
I think that people who dye their pubs need to get out more.

Load Toad
31st Jan 2009, 01:17
re you seriously telling us that it is perfectly natural, socially acceptable and presents absolutely no risk what so ever to smoke in the presence of your kids/grand kids/any other kids at any time, any location and for any duration


No - I'm telling you I want to be able to smoke in a certain part of a pub or in a pub licensed to allow smoking. I want there to be choice so I can take a legal drug with other people that like the same legal drug(s) and have a good time whilst doing it. I don't want kids in pubs, I don't want to smoke in front of my kids or any other kids. I don't want to cause offence to people who don't like my choice of drugs and I don't want them to upset me by having to put up with them whining like stuck pigs and acting holier than thou if I choose to light up a ciggy whilst I'm having a pint of beer whilst chatting with me mates. I also suggest that the restriction on this legal drug taking is one contributory factor in the decline of pubs.

Is there anything in that answer Sfp that is unclear to you? Do I need to get my dear elderly mum, an ex-primary school teacher who taught for many years sometimes in schools in difficult inner cities to come by an' explain it gently to you through the medium of the Peter & Jane Ladybird books?


Edited to add: I don't think of myself as a 'smoker' any more than I think of myself as an alcoholic because occasionally I get drunk or a stoner because I've done a few spliffs in me time.

Scumbag O'Riley
31st Jan 2009, 08:59
Not only is O'Riley refusing to spend £7 for two drinks in the (very nice) village pub where they short measure you on your bitter, we have started to work towards the decline of the curry house tooo.

Last time we went out for a curry in one of these new posh curry houses it cost £80 for two and it was nowt special. ****, remember Brick Lane when a nan bread was 15p and the most expensive starter was some king prawn nonsense thrown onto some old transport cafe side plate and it cost less than a quid. Impossible to spend a fiver and as they didn't serve booze, you had to cross the road to the offie and get a few cans of ale at retail prices to go with your meal.

Those were the days, you could judge a curry house by the standard of the toilets - an inverse law applied I believe. Now the toilets are all clean and sparkly the curry has gone down hill big time.

(This law only applies in the UK and not India of course)

So O'Riley now goes to sainsburys on the way back from work and picks up a bombay brasserie for two for £10.99. Throw it in some posh Denby type serving dish and you reckon it's the best curry you have had in years. Combine it with a £5 bottle of plonk (again from Sainsburys and reduced from a tenner and probably a loss leader) and you can have a good scoff for £16 plus the price of the electricity to cook it.

Few weeks ago bought a couple of them and invited the next door neighbours round for an off the cuff dinner, served it out of the plastic containers, and a great night was had by all.

All this going out and spending £100 is well overrated I tell ya. Of course I don't have any mates and never meet anybody new but it's a price well paying in my book!

Lon More
31st Jan 2009, 10:22
Spot on Scumbag. Picked up a dinner for two at Tescos last week. Mushrooms in a pastry package, roast spuds, dessert and a bottle of wine for £9. Same meal at local pub/restaurant and you're looking at £20 a head.

Maybe that's why theWitherspoons' pubs always seem to do well (Buy in cheap and pile it high)

419
31st Jan 2009, 10:43
Sod your average (or even posh) UK curry house. As Scumbag says, total rip off and food that a lot of Indians would fail to recognise. (and as for what most pubs refer to as "curry" :yuk: )

If you're ever in Southall, there are some fantastic places there. (I'm sure it's the same situation in the Asian areas of most big cities, but London is the only one I've tried).
Good food, very reasonable prices, and usually packed with locals which is often a good sign.

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 11:24
Seldom,

If you walk into a bar, stand beside me and whine about me smoking then courtesy is the last thing you would get because NO EFFER FORCED YOU TO GO THERE!

Now, I ask you to explain why I should be discriminated against because of YOUR decision to walk into an environment open to the public where people wish to use a legal substance.... And "it makes my clothes smell" is NOT a valid argument.

747 jock
31st Jan 2009, 11:39
And "it makes my clothes smell" is NOT a valid argument

Why is it not a valid argument?
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it any less valid.


And as for earlier comments. (Not from you hellsbrink).

I was always told that once people start using childish and personal insults, they know that they have lost their argument and have nothing further to add.

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 11:41
And why is "makes my clothes smell" a valid argumen for discrimination, 747?

Avitor
31st Jan 2009, 11:54
None of the often bigoted waffle I have had the dubious pleasure of reading here detracts from the fact that the smoking ban is responsible for the closure of countless pubs.

In fact, it reinforces my theory, sorry, fact!

747 jock
31st Jan 2009, 12:02
Because I don't like the smell and my wife can't stand the smell, therefore for me, it is a valid point.

I might be popping into a pub for a quick drink before I go to a meeting, an interview or something similar, and I might not want to turn up stinking because of someone elses addiction to smoking.

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 12:06
So you go to meetings/interviews/etc stinking of alcohol instead? That's even worse!!

747 jock
31st Jan 2009, 12:13
the fact that the smoking ban is responsible for the closure of countless pubs.

Where exactly are these facts? I don't just want links showing the number of pubs that have closed, but links proving that the only reason for their closure was the smoking ban

I suppose the smoking ban is also responsible for the closure of MFI, Woolworth, Waterford etc.
Pubs, shops, manufacturers etc are all closing down at the moment, and will continue to do until the economy improves

Yes, the smoking ban will have had some effect, but as comments from pub and bar associations have themselves stated, (earlier on in this topic) it is not the only reason.

747 jock
31st Jan 2009, 12:16
So you go to meetings/interviews/etc stinking of alcohol instead?

Yet another attempt to change the topic instead of making a valid point I see.
Where did I mention alcohol?
Pubs do serve non alcoholic drinks nowadays.

Avitor
31st Jan 2009, 12:26
Where exactly are these facts? I don't just want links showing the number of pubs that have closed, but links proving that the only reason for their closure was the smoking ban.

I used an abacus, simple if you know how to use one!

Count the closures before the smoking ban, then after.

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 12:29
Yet another attempt to change the topic instead of making a valid point I see.
Where did I mention alcohol?
Pubs do serve non alcoholic drinks nowadays.

Then you could go to countless other places for that soft drink or coffee, places that have more of a reason to have tobacco banned, like cafes and restaurants.

Again, NOBODY IS FORCING YOU INTO A PUB SO WHY SHOULD YOU FORCE OTHERS TO CONFORM WITH YOUR VIEWS.

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 12:33
Where exactly are these facts? I don't just want links showing the number of pubs that have closed, but links proving that the only reason for their closure was the smoking ban

I suppose the smoking ban is also responsible for the closure of MFI, Woolworth, Waterford etc.
Pubs, shops, manufacturers etc are all closing down at the moment, and will continue to do until the economy improves

Yes, the smoking ban will have had some effect, but as comments from pub and bar associations have themselves stated, (earlier on in this topic) it is not the only reason.

So the sudden drop in the amount of people going to most pubs as soon as the smoking ban came into play is insignificant? Same as the amount of people who don't smoke who stopped going to these same places because their smoking friends do not go there any more is insignificant? Let me put it this way, the pub people have been whining for some time about the competition from supermarkets but even you cannot argue about the significant drop in custom, which was well reported at the time, from the minute this ridiculous, ill thought, law (which can actually ban you from smoking in our own home!!) was brought into force.

At least our version here was sensible.....

Load Toad
31st Jan 2009, 12:43
Because I don't like the smell and my wife can't stand the smell, therefore for me, it is a valid point.

Well go somewhere were smoking isn't allowed then - you have plenty of options - and I'm pretty certain that you won't be missed.

I might be popping into a pub for a quick drink before I go to a meeting, an interview or something similar, and I might not want to turn up stinking because of someone elses addiction to smoking.

But you need a drink before you go to a meeting or an interview. Do you mention this sad dependency during your meetings or interviews? I have contact numbers for the AA if you think it's time to address the issue.

And smokers are not necessarily addicts. I'm not. And I don't need a drink or ciggy before a meeting or interview either.

Do you get invites to many parties or nights out - just out of interest like?

747 jock
31st Jan 2009, 13:00
I have never said that the smoking ban has not caused pub trade to drop, and I have never said that that this has not had any effect on some pubs closing.

What I have said, and will continue to say until someone can prove otherwise is that there are many other factors which have also had a significant effect on this.


If the best proof that someone can come up with is
I used an abacus, simple if you know how to use one!

Count the closures before the smoking ban, then after.

It really sums up someones idea of what valid proof actually means.

Then you could go to countless other places for that soft drink or coffee, places that have more of a reason to have tobacco banned, like cafes and restaurants

Why do they have more of a reason?
After all, it's been said on here by many people that passive smoking doesn't harm anyone and that bar workers have a choice to work there or leave, as do the customers, so why the distinction for places that serve food?
It's either acceptable to smoke in enclosed public places, or it isn't.

Well go somewhere were smoking isn't allowed then
I do. It's called a pub.

But you need a drink before you go to a meeting or an interview. Do you mention this sad dependency during your meetings or interviews? I have contact numbers for the AA if you think it's time to address the

Yet another person who either can't read what was written, or chooses not to read it correctly. I did not mention alcohol.

Do you get invites to many parties or nights out - just out of interest like?
More than enough thank you.

and I'm pretty certain that you won't be missed.


And I'm glad to see that my earlier point about people making personal comments when they have run out of valid arguments has been proven yet again.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Jan 2009, 13:10
The question is dead simple but the answer, for some is rather unpalatable which is why they simply avoid it with rhetoric.

Why do most sensible polite and considerate smokers treat their non smoking kith and kin with the utmost respect when smoking but are unwiling to stand by those same values in a pub full of strangers :confused:

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 13:11
Better read the goddamned news then, Jock, because all the evidence is clear to see (unlike the so-called "Passive Smoking" argument)

Now explain why I should be discriminated against because of YOUR views in regard to smoking, because that is all your attempted argument is. YOU trying to impose YOUR WILL on others irrespective of their rights, etc.

Fecking Anti-Tobacco Nazi's are all the same, it's all "Me, Me, Me" and bugger the rights an views of others without even coming out with a cognitive argument to support that attempted argument (as well as changing the argument repeatedly as we have seen by at least one in this thread when his claims were shot down).

Avitor
31st Jan 2009, 13:12
And I'm glad to see that my earlier point about people making personal comments when they have run out of valid arguments has been proven yet again.

Good to see you have a sense of humour. Ever heard of the word reciprocation? ;)

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 13:14
Why do most sensible polite and considerate smokers treat their non smoking kith and kin with the utmost respect when smoking but are unwiling to stand by those same values in a pub full of strangers

And why do sanctimonious :mad: like you stand besde people who smoke and then whine about it?

You see, we do RESPECT people and their wishes, unlike you. That's been proven clearly

Load Toad
31st Jan 2009, 13:15
So you just don't like smokers and smoking - fine I do and I want the choice of pubs to smoke in. I'd like to have restaurants and such that were smoking zones too.

But faced with people like yourself who selfishly refuse to allow people who like to smoke places they can do so us that do smoke have gone out of our way to accommodate you. But I can now see we were wrong to simply ask for choice and places where we could smoke - and to limit that to a zone in a pub or a pub that was licensed to allow smoking. I reckon best thing we that like to smoke can do now is to start smoking wherever we like again - whatever the law says.

Load Toad
31st Jan 2009, 13:19
Why do most sensible polite and considerate smokers treat their non smoking kith and kin with the utmost respect when smoking but are unwiling to stand by those same values in a pub full of strangers

No - when I'm in a pub that allows smoking I'll smoke. Knowing how uptight and anal people who do not smoke can be many of us that like some weed go out of our way to not upset your sensitivities. In much the same way as though I like pork - I wouldn't chastise those that believe in religions that forbid the eating of it. Though of course it's plain daft.

747 jock
31st Jan 2009, 13:35
I have asked THREE times, and as yet no one has posted a verifiable answer. "Where is the proof that the smoking ban is the only reason that pubs are closing down."

The only reply to this question was:

I used an abacus, simple if you know how to use one!
Count the closures before the smoking ban, then after

Well, the smoking ban in public places came into force in mid 2007.
Using my abacus, (and the internet), I found the following things that have happened in the period since then.

The number of properties repossessed by lenders in the second quarter of this year was up 71% on the same period last year, figures showed today.

The jobless total increased by 131,000 in the three months to November to 1.92 million, the highest figure for over a decade

The number of people declared bankrupt in England and Wales during the third quarter of 2008 have jumped by 9.5% compared to the same period in 2007 according to the latest figures released by the Insolvency Service.

All I can say is that the smoking ban has a lot to answer for.

Load Toad
31st Jan 2009, 13:48
"Where is the proof that the smoking ban is the only reason that pubs are closing down."


I don't think it is the only reason. It's an important contributing factor. There is rarely one thing which causes a business to deteriorate. But the no smoking BS combined with cheap booze from supermarkets & to a lesser extent the strict drink driving laws have impacted on pubs business as the customers are choosing other ways to socialise; sitting at home watching TV smoking & drinking.

I find the vociferous non-smokers are quite repulsive in their character - they refuse point blank to provide any proof for their position and refuse to allow people who like legal drugs places any public place to do so.

hellsbrink
31st Jan 2009, 13:54
HAHAHAHA Jock, you say others try to change the subject and then come out with that sort of malebovinefaeces again.

Tell you what, prove that the smoking ban has NOT been a major contributing factor to the loss of pubs since it came into force, especially with all the information published since before and after the ban.

And we'll let you sit with your two mates in an empty pub gibbering about how great the atmosphere in the place is with just the three of you there...


(PS. You still haven't explained why people like me should be discriminated against and have our rights trampled on just to suit YOUR view on life)