smoking and the pub

Yeah but by that measure Chris you should ban alcohol as well then as bar staff are routinely exposed to abuse and aggresion due to drunken customers. I am not saying smoking is a good thing i am not suggesting anyone should have to endure it if they don't want to. What i am saying is that it is still legal to purchase tobacco in the UK in fact the government needs the revenue so unless they have the balls to make it illegal and stop taking money from it they have no right to restrict it in the way they did. Also most of the bar staff i know smoke and so i doubt it would have been hard to organise that side of it either.

As far as i am concerned this was an exercise by the government to see how far it could go to restrict personal activity and smoking won't be the last thing they hit. Personally i don't drink alcohol but i routinely have to put up with drunks being abusive and throwing up on my road not to mention the broken glasses that litter the town centre after a weekend if we want we all have a reason to want something restricted\banned doesn't mean it should be or that we should actively pursue that end. I have also loved the "selfish" argument that non smoker's put up as they were thinking purely of themselves when they called for it to be banned pot calling the kettle methinks.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Yeah but by that measure Chris you should ban alcohol as well then as bar staff are routinely exposed to abuse and aggresion due to drunken customers. I am not saying smoking is a good thing i am not suggesting anyone should have to endure it if they don't want to. What i am saying is that it is still legal to purchase tobacco in the UK in fact the government needs the revenue so unless they have the balls to make it illegal and stop taking money from it they have no right to restrict it in the way they did. Also most of the bar staff i know smoke and so i doubt it would have been hard to organise that side of it either.

Bar staff have the right not to be abused at work. Drunk punters can and do get dragged through the courts because it's already illegal for punters to expose the bar staff to aggression. Actually the Licensee could wind up in court as well, as it's his responsibility to keep order on his premises. Just as it is now his responsibility to ensure his staff are not exposed to smoke.

I don't think it follows that tobacco being legal means there is no grounds for strict controls on it. Alcohol, for example, is already a lot more restricted than tobacco in where and when you can buy and consume it.

As far as i am concerned this was an exercise by the government to see how far it could go to restrict personal activity and smoking won't be the last thing they hit. Personally i don't drink alcohol but i routinely have to put up with drunks being abusive and throwing up on my road not to mention the broken glasses that litter the town centre after a weekend if we want we all have a reason to want something restricted\banned doesn't mean it should be or that we should actively pursue that end. I have also loved the "selfish" argument that non smoker's put up as they were thinking purely of themselves when they called for it to be banned pot calling the kettle methinks.

I don't believe any of the main political parties in the UK have an agenda that goes something like, "Bwuhahahahaaaaaa ... let's see how many personal freedoms we can remove this week!" so I'm really not buying in to your idea that the smoking ban was Labour's experiment in seeing how far they can cow the populace.

And as I've already said, the drunken activity you describe is *already* illegal. Anyone doing any of the things you mention can be prosecuted for any of a whole range of offences.

Originally Posted by Chris T

£83 million a year is, if you'll pardon the pun, small beer in the context of an annual UK budget that's now in the region of £600 billion.

£83million can buy quite a few things for the Anti Smoking brigade in the UK. How about buying them all a free air con unit so they can breath cool air in the summer instead of trying to blame the smokers for the greenhouse effect which will be the next step.

Sorry Chris it might be illegal but it is something that rarely results in any action other then a cooling off period in the cells where i live. End of the day it is a mute point as the non smoker's the "unselfish" lot got what they wanted and damn anyone else. What will we make the next big nasty now that smoker's have been successfully clubbed into submission and the revenue from tobacco annually is around 9-10 billion but the non smoker's will be happy to pay the extra income tax so they can breath smoke free air (just don't mention the exhaust fumes).

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Sorry Chris it might be illegal but it is something that rarely results in any action other then a cooling off period in the cells where i live.
<snip>

Hang on ... we're trying to discuss whether it's fair to ban smoking in enclosed public places, and you're complaining that your local plod is too lenient on drunks.

Please explain the connection?

I was just answering what you said when trying to explain alcohol problems. Fact is while smoking might not have been the most pleasant thing for non smoker's to endure it didn't instantly lead to health problems as many in the non smoking camp were making out when campaiigning for the ban hell you'd have thought the NHS was overwhelmed by smoking related illnesses which it clearly isn't.

I wonder what will have to be restricted\banned for some people to see this ban was overkill on an activity that despite what some people think wasn't the biggie it was made out to be. As for pubs being so much better now the smoke is gone yeah your absolutely right i love sitting in one drinking my coke smelling the sweat off the guy that just finished work for the day and the lovely smell of the urinals if your close enough to them, and lets not forget that lovely stale beer smell that is such a complement to the atmosphere.


It's funny because a few of the people i socialise with that used to moan about smoking are now saying they miss it and it wasn't that bad what a funny little world we live in .

[roadwolf]

Lets get this thing into context, pubs used to be frequented mainly by smokers, until the so called middle class decided that they wanted to go out for something to eat. Instead of going to a restaurant the decided to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant and then complained of the smokey atmosphere,the smoking drinkers were there first, they didn't start going to restaurants to drink. It's like the american indians and the aboriginies all over again, move in take over and restrict what the indigenous population can do. What next slip some disease into our beer and rid yourselves of all beer drinkers.

[soup dragon]

^^ welcome to the planet

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by roadwolf

the smoking drinkers were there first,

Actually the drinkers were there first.... Beer and wine and establishments selling them have been around a lot longer than tobacco

Kymmy

Originally Posted by roadwolf

Lets get this thing into context, pubs used to be frequented mainly by smokers, until the so called middle class decided that they wanted to go out for something to eat. Instead of going to a restaurant the decided to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant and then complained of the smokey atmosphere,the smoking drinkers were there first, they didn't start going to restaurants to drink. It's like the american indians and the aboriginies all over again, move in take over and restrict what the indigenous population can do. What next slip some disease into our beer and rid yourselves of all beer drinkers.

Hello? And how exactly did the evil middle classes decide to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant, unless the pub's owners first decided to turn it into a pub resembling a restaurant?

Sorry but the line you're taking here has more holes than a colander.

Originally Posted by roadwolf

Lets get this thing into context, pubs used to be frequented mainly by smokers, until the so called middle class decided that they wanted to go out for something to eat. Instead of going to a restaurant the decided to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant and then complained of the smokey atmosphere,the smoking drinkers were there first, they didn't start going to restaurants to drink. It's like the american indians and the aboriginies all over again, move in take over and restrict what the indigenous population can do. What next slip some disease into our beer and rid yourselves of all beer drinkers.

are you talking about the 50's when smoking was encouraged by some doctors as stress relief? everyone and their dog knows smoking is bad for you (the dog will cough splutter and not be happy if you blow smoke in its face)

[shawty]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Yeah but by that measure Chris you should ban alcohol as well then as bar staff are routinely exposed to abuse and aggresion due to drunken customers. I am not saying smoking is a good thing i am not suggesting anyone should have to endure it if they don't want to. What i am saying is that it is still legal to purchase tobacco in the UK in fact the government needs the revenue so unless they have the balls to make it illegal and stop taking money from it they have no right to restrict it in the way they did. Also most of the bar staff i know smoke and so i doubt it would have been hard to organise that side of it either.

As far as i am concerned this was an exercise by the government to see how far it could go to restrict personal activity and smoking won't be the last thing they hit. Personally i don't drink alcohol but i routinely have to put up with drunks being abusive and throwing up on my road not to mention the broken glasses that litter the town centre after a weekend if we want we all have a reason to want something restricted\banned doesn't mean it should be or that we should actively pursue that end. I have also loved the "selfish" argument that non smoker's put up as they were thinking purely of themselves when they called for it to be banned pot calling the kettle methinks.

So why should I have to walk further to the pub, because the one closer to me was a smoking pub? It doesnt work, No one has had their rights removed, if you want to smoke you go outside, you can still do it freely, but why would you want to inflict it on other people who hate the smell and also suffer from breathing in smoke.

But no, people wanted me to walk 1 mile further to go to the other pub because some lazy people couldnt walk 20 metres to the outside of the pub for 3 minutes every 30 minutes to 1 hour.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Sorry Chris it might be illegal but it is something that rarely results in any action other then a cooling off period in the cells where i live. End of the day it is a mute point as the non smoker's the "unselfish" lot got what they wanted and damn anyone else. What will we make the next big nasty now that smoker's have been successfully clubbed into submission and the revenue from tobacco annually is around 9-10 billion but the non smoker's will be happy to pay the extra income tax so they can breath smoke free air (just don't mention the exhaust fumes).

Do you have a problem with smokers having to walk 20 metres to the outside of a pub? Dont you feel more for the people with asthma who just want a quite drink who under what you would rather have happened, have to walk 1 mile to the none smoking pub?

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I was just answering what you said when trying to explain alcohol problems. Fact is while smoking might not have been the most pleasant thing for non smoker's to endure it didn't instantly lead to health problems as many in the non smoking camp were making out when campaiigning for the ban hell you'd have thought the NHS was overwhelmed by smoking related illnesses which it clearly isn't.
I wonder what will have to be restricted\banned for some people to see this ban was overkill on an activity that despite what some people think wasn't the biggie it was made out to be. As for pubs being so much better now the smoke is gone yeah your absolutely right i love sitting in one drinking my coke smelling the sweat off the guy that just finished work for the day and the lovely smell of the urinals if your close enough to them, and lets not forget that lovely stale beer smell that is such a complement to the atmosphere.


It's funny because a few of the people i socialise with that used to moan about smoking are now saying they miss it and it wasn't that bad what a funny little world we live in .

Thats utter tosh. You try walking into a smoke filled pub when you have asthma and then tell me it "it didn't instantly lead to health problems". Breathing in smoke, any type of smoke is bad for your health no matter how much or how little.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Originally Posted by roadwolf

Lets get this thing into context, pubs used to be frequented mainly by smokers, until the so called middle class decided that they wanted to go out for something to eat. Instead of going to a restaurant the decided to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant and then complained of the smokey atmosphere,the smoking drinkers were there first, they didn't start going to restaurants to drink. It's like the american indians and the aboriginies all over again, move in take over and restrict what the indigenous population can do. What next slip some disease into our beer and rid yourselves of all beer drinkers.

I would say that was utter tosh, and has no basis of fact to it what so ever.

Infact the smokers I did know already went outside to smoke so they would not be rude and inflict smoke onto people who didnt like it.

See above post on the point i was making about how smoker's are called the selfish ones. Because it is nothing but a constant ramble about how YOU might have had to walk a bit further for a pub but it is ok for others to have to do it for your benefit . All of this is of course mute as the law got passed and the unselfish ones got their way. Oh and those figures i wouldn't put too much stock in them as many people don't get their tobacco from the UK anymore and so don't show up on the figures.

[shawty]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

See above post on the point i was making about how smoker's are called the selfish ones. Because it is nothing but a constant ramble about how YOU might have had to walk a bit further for a pub but it is ok for others to have to do it for your benefit . All of this is of course mute as the law got passed and the unselfish ones got their way. Oh and those figures i wouldn't put too much stock in them as many people don't get their tobacco from the UK anymore and so don't show up on the figures.

Selfish? How? Ive got asthma, its your choice to smoke, so why choose to do it close to people who dont like it. The whole point was that you might have to move 20 metres where I would have to move 1 mile, but hey Im the selfish one because people cant be bothered to walk 20 metres to be considerate. There is no two ways about it, when you choose to smoke, please only breath in the smoke yourself, its not selfish to not want to breath in your smoke, especially being asthmatic.

Many people have personal health problems that could be used as a reason for this and that and thats why it's pointless. Also i DON'T smoke anymore i can just see it from the smoker's side of the argument having once been a smoker and no one ever inhaled my smoke as i didn't smoke in pub's. Thats the thing in this whole debate no one wants to see anyone's else's side of the argument and as i have said it's pointless now as smoking is banned in enclosed public places.