smoking and the pub - Page 102

Escapee · 02-07-2007, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Yep, it's great, isn't it.

There's an aspect to this I don't suppose folks in England are going to experience though: When the ban had been in force a while in Scotland I travelled back down south to visit family and the shock of walking into a restaurant or a pub in England was astounding. I couldn't believe that it could smell that bad, and I couldn't believe that, with that gift of hindsight, the overwhelming majority (i.e. the three out of four people who don't smoke) had put up with it for so long.

Now everywhere is smoke-free you probably won't get to experience the contrast in quite the same way, but perhaps that's no bad thing!

Here's to a cleaner, healthier UK.

You will probably still notice it as I do in my local, when someone goes outside for a smoke and comes back in you can smell them staight away. Its very noticable when the pub is not very busy, but not quite so at busy times.

Gareth · 03-07-2007, 16:48

A different perspective...

Quote:

The number of fires and related home insurance claims could surge as the smoking ban takes hold in Britain, Abbey has warned.

According to figures released by the bank, Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£11 billion worth of damage is currently caused by smoking-related fires in the home, potentially leaving homeowners drastically out of pocket if they do not have home insurance cover.

In addition to the financial consequences, 132 deaths and 1,600 injuries result from these incidents over the course of a year, the bank said.

03-07-2007, 18:30

What makes me laugh most about this is that a group of people in the UK endulging in a legal activity have just had a large chunk of rights removed and some seem to feel thats good. I wonder if they will feel happy when this government that has done bugger all but diminish the rights of the public start on something they like and will no doubt expect support to fight. For the record i am all in favour of non smokers having a smoke free enviroment to use in their leisure time but was it really asking so much for smokers to have those facilities as well seems like a petty victory for non smokers to me.

Derek · 03-07-2007, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

What makes me laugh most about this is that a group of people in the UK endulging in a legal activity have just had a large chunk of rights removed and some seem to feel thats good.

Drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine used to be legal. Same as owning handguns, semi-automatic rifles as well as a bunch of other stuff that for one reason or another isn't allowed any more.

Times change. The majority think the ban is a good idea.

03-07-2007, 18:57

Sorry derek i missed the referendum on this issue i thought the government just decided that it would happen and it did. Also yes some things were legal and arn't now but thats unlikely to happen with tobacco because of the money this and all other governments get from it. End of the day rights have been taken away from a large minority and sod all is said because it is for the good of the country. Using that reasoning then why hasn't this government done a thing about alcohol as that causes much more harm then smoking actually does. Simple smoking was a far far easier target although now that smoking has gone from public places drinking has become a little easier a target so we will watch for that persecution to start.

Derek · 03-07-2007, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Sorry derek i missed the referendum on this issue i thought the government just decided that it would happen and it did.

They had a great big one for fox-hunting, handguns, smoking in public, the Iraq war, 24 hour drinking and some other things. You must have been on holiday at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Using that reasoning then why hasn't this government done a thing about alcohol as that causes much more harm then smoking actually does.

Well they have pumped the price up a fair bit in the last 10 years I've been drinking. I've had to get new jobs paying more just to be able to keep up!

Escapee · 03-07-2007, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

They had a great big one for fox-hunting, handguns, smoking in public, the Iraq war, 24 hour drinking and some other things. You must have been on holiday at the time.

Well they have pumped the price up a fair bit in the last 10 years I've been drinking. I've had to get new jobs paying more just to be able to keep up!

Same for me, getting to the stage where I may have to also get a part time job or give up work and go on benefits to afford the booze.

I find very few smokers are actually complaining about it, we have one who keeps on about it. I asked him last week if he ever heard me complain about the nasty smell in the pub, burnt clothes, smell in my hair and the nasty smell of last night clothes in the laundry basket.

he did agree that he never heard me complain, so I told him it was a fact that pubs were full of smoke and I didn't complain. now pubs are not full of smoke he should accept it instead of grumbling non stop about it.

03-07-2007, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Escapee

I find very few smokers are actually complaining about it, we have one who keeps on about it.

That's because we are affraid that we will have even more of our 'rights' removed.

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gareth

A different perspective...

Quote:

The number of fires and related home insurance claims could surge as the smoking ban takes hold in Britain, Abbey has warned.

Not in our household, I smoke outside....

fireman328 · 03-07-2007, 22:29

On the very top of this page in the in the small ads are adverts for "No smocking signs" Does this mean we cannot smock up and become yokels !next thing you know this damned government will ban smoking !

Stuart · 03-07-2007, 22:38

A quick question.

Has it been conclusively and scientifically proved that passive smoking is dangerous? Not saying it isn't, it's just I don't recall seeing any evidence of anyone seriously investigating the claim.

Xaccers · 03-07-2007, 22:40

How is breathing in unfiltered and filtered fumes going to be any less dangerous than breathing in filtered fumes?

Pia · 03-07-2007, 22:41

Does anyone agree or disagree that my boss is being ever so slightly discriminating? Was hoping for peoples opinions..

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post1510.html

Derek · 03-07-2007, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Has it been conclusively and scientifically proved that passive smoking is dangerous? Not saying it isn't, it's just I don't recall seeing any evidence of anyone seriously investigating the claim.

The closest I can find is THIS.

Stuart · 03-07-2007, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

How is breathing in unfiltered and filtered fumes going to be any less dangerous than breathing in filtered fumes?

One possible way is that anyone not smoking the cigarette gets a much smaller dose.

superbiatch · 03-07-2007, 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

A quick question.

Has it been conclusively and scientifically proved that passive smoking is dangerous? Not saying it isn't, it's just I don't recall seeing any evidence of anyone seriously investigating the claim.

Here is some more http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html