Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34713517)

This is a somewhat fallacious argument. There could be any number of reasons why smoke-free pubs didn't take off in the absence of legal compulsion. You can't conclude that the lack of them *must* be due to lack of demand, just because that's the conclusion that best suits the point you want to make.

Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business. Publicans may have acknowledged a demand for smoke-free environs, but concluded that the risks associated with going down that route were too high, especially when the status quo was demonstrably profitable already.

On the other hand, banning it in law has ensured a level playing field has continued.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34713724)

Do you call making places we are all entitled to visit, this includes pubs you know, pubs are not just for smokers as you seem to be implying with your assertion that nobody makes you go to a pub.

Originally Posted by freezin (Post 34714067)

It isn't a fallacious argument at all. There was no demand from the public for smoke free pubs. The demand came from politicians and health professionals.

Originally Posted by freezin (Post 34714067)

It isn't a fallacious argument at all. There was no demand from the public for smoke free pubs. The demand came from politicians and health professionals.



I think you will find that there was a demand for smoke free pubs and eating establishments, indeed I know of one landlord who told customers the pub was to become none smoking after refurbishment, this was before the government stepped in with legislation, he claims that initially he had the hard core smokers giving it loads about not drinking in there, but he is now making more money now that it is none smoking, so I think there was a demand there waiting to be tapped.

Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business, but the status quo in recent years has not been very profitable. You must have seen the news reports about the number of pubs closing down? Not solely due to the smoking ban, obviously, but it has played its part in the decline of the pub trade. And the law hasn't ensured a level playing field for publicans (v cheap booze from supermarkets) and smokers.


Well the "demise" of the pub is not solely down to the smoking ban, it is half a dozen of one and half the other.
I think we can all be blamed every time we get our weekly shop and the beer delivered.



No one is "entitled" to visit a pub. It's a private establishment which you enter at the landlord's discretion. I didn't mean to give the impression that I think pubs are just for smokers; most non-smokers I know never complained much at all about cigarette smoke, and don't think it's a factor important enough to help bring about my local's demise.

Forget the crap, its not nice stinking of smoke, and aslong as I behave myself I am entitled to be in a pub.



No, they don't. It would be extremely anti-social to urinate on a person when there are perfectly adequate toilet facilities in pubs. One person urinating on someone is on a different anti-social scale to one person smoking. It's not a valid comparison.


See above.


I'm not as willing as you are to make an already diabolical situation even worse. I think you're pretty blasé about tax increases - 5p would make a big, big difference.


You asked if I would be willing to pay more taxes, I gave you the answer, whether you think I am blase does not come into it.


I say the government should leave most parents to look after the welfare of their children and stop interfering, and help the children crying out for state intervention. Then perhaps it can look elsewhere for problems.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34716815)

A quick question,with respect, do you smoke?

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34716815)

" Most parents " ?
All children are at risk of damage to their health from second hand smoke, lung cancer does not discriminate class wise.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 34716861)

Reality is this whole anti-smoking thing at the minute is an attack on a freedom that some citizens choose to have and while i agree smelling of cigarettes is not a nice thing and some people really do hate it (i am a smoker by the way) until the ban i never heard or saw it putting people off going out for a night in the pub or anywhere else.

As for the whole "there was a demand for smoke free pubs before the ban" er no there wasn't maybe in the big cities but not much elsewhere as we had one that tried it in our town he went out of business after six months despite running 5 other successful pubs so you can't use the old excuse of him not knowing what he was doing.

As for smoking in cars of course people shouldn't smoke in cars when kids are in them but i really don't think it is an area the government should be interfering in and if we allow them to interfere on that level we are just asking for trouble in a whole host of other areas.

Apart from anything else this government doesn't have the best track record so even if i were to agree to the principle of them interfering at this level i would want a government with a little more credibility doing it.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 34716861)

Reality is this whole anti-smoking thing at the minute is an attack on a freedom that some citizens choose to have and while i agree smelling of cigarettes is not a nice thing and some people really do hate it (i am a smoker by the way) until the ban i never heard or saw it putting people off going out for a night in the pub or anywhere else.

As for the whole "there was a demand for smoke free pubs before the ban" er no there wasn't maybe in the big cities but not much elsewhere as we had one that tried it in our town he went out of business after six months despite running 5 other successful pubs so you can't use the old excuse of him not knowing what he was doing.

As for smoking in cars of course people shouldn't smoke in cars when kids are in them but i really don't think it is an area the government should be interfering in and if we allow them to interfere on that level we are just asking for trouble in a whole host of other areas.

Apart from anything else this government doesn't have the best track record so even if i were to agree to the principle of them interfering at this level i would want a government with a little more credibility doing it.

Originally Posted by rogermevans (Post 34716898)

i couldnt go into most pubs before the ban with out being very ill maybe you just have blinkers on caused by your drug habit of choice