smoking and the pub

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Pot kettle - kettle pot

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

Do we know there were well-placed ads?

I wouldn't have thought there would have needed to have been the way the anti-smoking lot harp on

Similarly your use of it is a nice attempt to leap with enthusiasm on the one case mentioned that fits in with your argument.

Ah yes, but an example nonetheless. can't think of a pub that has closed because it was sold itself as smoking pub. And i wonder what would have happened if the reverse were true. One smoking pub out of 30 non-smoking.

Since none of us know anything about why the Lounge closed I suggest it is misleading to use it in such an argument.

True, but educated guesses nonetheless.

I know a LOT of people who would love to be able to go to genuine non-smoking establishments.

Where were they when the Lounge needed them? (Although I will concede the it may not have been a 'good' pub regardless of the smoking policy)

It's amazing the energy smokers have. you'd have thought we'd have been puffed out long ago

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The Labour Party says it's right, and put it in its manifesto. The electorate democratically (within the limitations of our system) agreed with them and put them in power.

The Cabinet has agreed the wording of the Bill, and has introduced it to Parliament. It *will* be passed into Law, and it is the stated intention of the Health secretary that the new law will be a precursor to an outright ban within three years - three years, incidentally, is still within the lifetime of the current Parliament.

Where you say 'there may never be such legislation': on some of your points, maybe, but on the issue of smoking where food is served ... well, stick your head in the sand if you want. You'll be forced to come to terms with it within about 18 months from now.

It's interesting what you say about Government and other parties having to listen to a powerful section of the populace ... do you really think there's a cat in hell's chance of this being repealed once it's passed? Especially as in the UK, only 25% of people smoke and that number is dwindling steadily?

Just because an item is in a political parties manifesto doesn't mean that the voting populace put them in power because of that one item. It could be other items in the manifesto weighed against what was in the other parties manifestos that enabled them to win.

If you remember correctly the wording of the bill resulted in delays to its publication and was altered significantly just prior to publication. Many bills are introduced to Parliament and never result in legislation or are altered so much that the resultant legislation is completely different to what was originally on the table. Don't forget also that opposition parties often take a stance against government proposals, particularly on highly emotive issues where a fair proportion of government MPs may be (and in the case of a complete smoking ban are) at odds with their leadership. I suggest that your emphatic *will* be altered to *MAY*.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Ah yes, but an example nonetheless. can't think of a pub that has closed because it was sold itself as smoking pub. And i wonder what would have happened if the reverse were true. One smoking pub out of 30 non-smoking.

Please remember that we have no way of knowing if the pub closed purely because it was non-smoking. Furthermore we have no way of knowing the answer to your rhetorical question.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Where were they when the Lounge needed them? (Although I will concede the it may not have been a 'good' pub regardless of the smoking policy)

Not living in Swansea

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Just because an item is in a political parties manifesto doesn't mean that the voting populace put them in power because of that one item. It could be other items in the manifesto weighed against what was in the other parties manifestos that enabled them to win.

If you remember correctly the wording of the bill resulted in delays to its publication and was altered significantly just prior to publication. Many bills are introduced to Parliament and never result in legislation or are altered so much that the resultant legislation is completely different to what was originally on the table. Don't forget also that opposition parties often take a stance against government proposals, particularly on highly emotive issues where a fair proportion of government MPs may be (and in the case of a complete smoking ban are) at odds with their leadership. I suggest that your emphatic *will* be altered to *MAY*.

If you truly, truly believe that - well, I don't need to say any more to try to convince you otherwise. I am happy to let history run its course and I'm confident that what eventually gets onto the statute book will be *at least* as strict as the initial Bill. If you'd been following this in the Media you would know that the likelihood is it will get beefed up in the Commons, not watered down as is often the case with Bills.

As for the point about voting and manifestos - I agree, which is why I put 'within the limitations' in my post.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by clarie

In reference to all the nasty - unreasonable stalinist non-smokers and their oppressive views.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Chris T

From 'Ventilation and Air Filtration: The Science', at http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=268

"The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America adopted a disclaimer that states: "Some air cleaners may help to reduce secondhand smoke to a limited degree, but no air filtration or air purification system can completely eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness. Also, a simple reduction of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke."

Filtration of purification - no, extraction yes, however you would need to be standing in a howling gale for it to be fully effective.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Pierre

In reference to all the nasty - unreasonable stalinist non-smokers and their oppressive views.

Yeah really nasty of us to ask you to respect our healths. All hail the poor oppressed smokers.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Filtration of purification - no, extraction yes, however you would need to be standing in a howling gale for it to be fully effective.

Assuming 'extraction' and 'ventilation' are the same thing, here's another from the same page:

"Changes in ventilation rates during smoking do not have a significant influence on the air concentrations of tobacco components. This means, in effect, that efforts to reduce indoor air pollution through higher ventilation rates in buildings and homes would hardly lead to a measurable improvement of indoor air quality."
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=268 (Which is the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights website, but this paragraph is based on European Union research: "Joint Research Centre, Indoor air pollution: new EU research reveals higher risks than previously thought. Brussels: European Commission. September 22, 2003.")

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

People are people. They get into a habit of going certain places and doing certain things. There's nothing controversial about that.

Robots?

Not in the slightest. Rather, it's an appeal for evidence arising out of a context that bears at least *some* resemblance to the matter under discussion. For complete refutation of The Lounge as an adequate example of anything in this topic, why not look to Ireland, where the outright smoking ban has signally failed to bankrupt every pub in the country (or even most, or many, of them). So, we want to establish what might happen to business when smoking is excluded. We are confronted with the choice of examining one bar in Swansea, competing against a couple of dozen others where smoking is still allowed, or examining all bars in Ireland, where a ban has been introduced. I know, let's choose the example that fits the circumstances, not the one that fits the point we want to make, shall we?

Oh don't be ridiculous. Of course an outright ban is not going to bankrupt every pub in the country and I have never suggested it would. People will aways frequent pubs ban or no ban. The point, which is still a valid one, is that when punters were confronted with a choice the non-smoking establishment folded. In the lead up to the ban this is worhtwhile analysing as it demonstrates what much of the clientele seemed to have preferred. Deal with it.

What makes a typical pub-goer? Is there something in the genes of a person who likes to socialise in a public house with a glass of alcoholic drink that predisposes them towards being a smoker, or one who doesn't mind smoke? You have only to write that proposal down to see how ridiculous it looks.

I'm not a geneticist, but no doubt there is a genetic link to an addictive personality, and introversion/extroversion. Doesn't sound so ridiculoius couched in those terms.

Back to Ireland, where a post-ban drop in drink sales of 15% has been more than compensated for in new food sales. It seems (though it is admittedly early days) that the clientele is beginning to change.

Ah, so where are the smokers going? Puffing away at home probably. Do you know whether smoking cessation rates have gone up?
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

Please remember that we have no way of knowing if the pub closed purely because it was non-smoking. Furthermore we have no way of knowing the answer to your rhetorical question.

It was a hypothetical rather than rhetorical question so we can at least hazard a guess.

Not living in Swansea

Can't argue with that

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Robots?

No, human nature.

Oh don't be ridiculous. Of course an outright ban is not going to bankrupt every pub in the country and I have never suggested it would.

Which is why The Lounge is a bad example...

People will aways frequent pubs ban or no ban. The point, which is still a valid one, is that when punters were confronted with a choice the non-smoking establishment folded. In the lead up to the ban this is worhtwhile analysing as it demonstrates what much of the clientele seemed to have preferred. Deal with it.

I offered a scenario to explain this above, in post 1016. So I have already dealt with it.

I'm not a geneticist, but no doubt there is a genetic link to an addictive personality, and introversion/extroversion. Doesn't sound so ridiculoius couched in those terms.

No, you can justify just about anything if you dress it in pseudoscience.

Ah, so where are the smokers going? Puffing away at home probably. Do you know whether smoking cessation rates have gone up?

Now we really are going round in circles. Here:

" Irish pubs are now focussing on measures to limit the effects of the ban on their business. The sale of outdoor patio heaters has rocketed in Ireland this year as pubs develop outdoor areas where smoking customers can congregate to"have a smoke". There is some preliminary evidence to suggest that smoking levels have reduced and surveys clearly indicate that smokers smoke less now when out for a night in the pub since they must leave the company they are in and go outdoors to smoke. Whether the ban will substantially reduce the overall smoking levels in Ireland remains to be seen, but there is good reason to believe that this will be the case."

(From: http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/24/3/337 )

I have read elsewhere (but can't spot the link just now) that those early indications are that 1 in 12 smokers have already quit as a result of the ban in Ireland.

Note also that they are not puffing away at home, they are puffing away outside the pub, but generally puffing away rather less than they were. This has obvious health benefits for the smoker as well as those sat next to him.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Ah, so where are the smokers going? Puffing away at home probably.

Fine by me!

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Do you know whether smoking cessation rates have gone up?

Here are some facts and figures:

Nearly half of Irish smokers say the ban has made them more likely to quit, according to the Tobacco Control article. Among Irish smokers who have quit, 80% said the law helped them give up smoking, and 88% say the ban helped them remain smoke-free.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...nd-smoke_x.htm

Nearly 200,000 people could quit cigarettes if smoking was banned in public places, officials have said.


Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Fiona Adshead said the Government expected 1.7 per cent of smokers to give up if the ban was introduced. With 10.3million people in England smoking cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, that would mean 175,100 giving up.


Dr Adshead was giving evidence to the House of Commons health committee which is holding an inquiry into the Government's proposals to restrict smoking in public places.

She told MPs that evidence from other countries suggested the number of people who smoked dropped by four per cent after a ban. In the Republic of Ireland 7,000 people have quit since the ban was brought in. Dr Adshead told the committee: "In this country we estimate the impact will probably be about 1.7 per cent."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1774

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Ah, so where are the smokers going? Puffing away at home probably. Do you know whether smoking cessation rates have gone up?

The smokers still go to the pubs. The pubs have, in many cases, provided covered smoking areas outside the pub. In one case, a pub has parked a double decker bus outside for the smoking clientele. These areas are always crowded.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by clarie

<snip snippetty snip snip snip snippetty snip>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=366048&in_page_id=17 74[/url]

Clarie!!?? I thought linking to the Daily Mail was a crime punishable by death, what with it being a reactionary, 'hang 'em and flog 'em', hateful article.

Unless it's particularly relevant, of course
__________________

Originally Posted by Paddy1

The smokers still go to the pubs. The pubs have, in many cases, provided covered smoking areas outside the pub. In one case, a pub has parked a double decker bus outside for the smoking clientele. These areas are always crowded.

In the case of the bus, that's probably because of all the drunken layabouts who think it's taking them home

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

No, human nature.

You suggested that one reason it may have taken time to do well was beacuase of people's habits. I don't doubt that was part of it but human nature also consists of curiosity and the ability to make a choice. Most people will at least try something to see what's it's like. Hence i don't understand your confusion. Unless of course people are addicted to certain bars as they are nicotine

Which is why The Lounge is a bad example...

Fair enough, although single example may be more accurate.

No, you can justify just about anything if you dress it in pseudoscience.

No I can assure you that there is nothing false about these kinds of studies.

Now we really are going round in circles.

It feels so good to agree. (A bit like the first drag in the morning )
__________________

Originally Posted by Nugget

Clarie!!?? I thought linking to the Daily Mail was a crime punishable by death, what with it being a reactionary, 'hang 'em and flog 'em', hateful article.

Unless it's particularly relevant, of course

I know I'm already clearing my history/cache as we speak