smoking and the pub - Page 50

clarie · 02-11-2005, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Claire's point (I think), and mine, is that you cannot separate laws on smoking from any other law that affects a business. If you consider smoking legislation to be bullying the proprietor, you must consider all other business law to be bullying the proprietor also. And that undermines your suggestion that a landlord might give up the pub trade and go and find a business where he won't get bullied. No such business exists.

Exactly. I am afraid orangebird is separating smoking from any other health and safety laws because it fits her argument, and because she doesn't want to have to stop smoking in pubs. It's as simple as that.

lippy · 02-11-2005, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

They very rarely go with us to a pub for a meal because I have no faith in air con systems that allegedly keep the smoke in smoky areas......
.... The other thing about young children is that they cost rather a lot, so I for one am glad of JD's low-cost menu.

There ^^^

**Chris** · 02-11-2005, 13:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by lippy

There ^^^

You edited out the bit where I said "If I go in a Wetherspoon it's usually just me and the missus, on a rare evening out".

If we go out to eat during the day with the children, we try our hardest to go places where we are reasonably sure the food is ok. He was weaned on Annabel Carmel, so he has discerning tastes!

02-11-2005, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

Exactly. I am afraid orangebird is separating smoking from any other health and safety laws because it fits her argument, and because she doesn't want to have to stop smoking in pubs. It's as simple as that.

Freedom of choice is my concern. If you want to smoke you can, its not illegal. If you don't want to smoke that's also a individual choice. If you want to smoke in a public house, find one that accepts this policy, if not go elsewhere. Same apply's for non-smokers.

clarie · 02-11-2005, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neonknight

Freedom of choice is my concern. If you want to smoke you can, its not illegal. If you don't want to smoke that's also a individual choice. If you want to smoke in a public house, find one that accepts this policy, if not go elsewhere. Same apply's for non-smokers.

Well that's fine, I do disagree though.

Not sure how it relates to the quote from me though. I said that because orangebird was suggesting that smoking regulations were a form of bullying whilst other health and safety regulations aren't.

**Chris** · 02-11-2005, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Freedom of choice is my concern. If you want to smoke you can, its not illegal. If you don't want to smoke that's also a individual choice. If you want to smoke in a public house, find one that accepts this policy, if not go elsewhere. Same apply's for non-smokers.

The fatal flaw with that argument is that market forces have not allowed a viable choice in this area to become available. Whether through fear of loss of trade, or inertia, pubs (with the notable exception of Wetherspoons) do not choose to go smoke free. So we use the law to enforce it, on the grounds that the health issues are so serious, the intrusion on personal freedom is warranted.

Salu · 02-11-2005, 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Not sure if annoyed is the right word - exasperated or irritated at peoples deliberate ignorance to suit there own agendas would be more like it. That's why I'm being rude. I think my rudeness is a lot less offensive than some people bloody mindedness tbh.

I'm surprised that you think your rudeness is less offensive than other people's bloody-mindedness. Are you not being, even just a smidgen bloody-minded yourself?

As Rob says I think the tone needs dialling down and the debate should be amicable.

02-11-2005, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

Well that's fine, I do disagree though.

Not sure how it relates to the quote from me though. I said that because orangebird was suggesting that smoking regulations were a form of bullying whilst other health and safety regulations aren't.

Just trying to point out my view is that its up to an individual to smoke, same should apply to the landlord and what he/she wants in their establishment. A complete ban is a direct hit on freedom of choice. Also, can anybody explain why there is H&S regulations about smoking that we all have to adhere to but smoking is still legal? Seems a contradiction to me.

clarie · 02-11-2005, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neonnight

Just trying to point out my view is that its up to an individual to smoke, same should apply to the landlord and what he/she wants in their establishment. A complete ban is a direct hit on freedom of choice. Also, can anybody explain why there is H&S regulations about smoking that we all have to adhere to but smoking is still legal? Seems a contradiction to me

There are health and safety regulations that we adhere to that apply to many legal activities, like lifting and carrying, climbing, alcohol consumption and all sorts.

**Chris** · 02-11-2005, 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Just trying to point out my view is that its up to an individual to smoke, same should apply to the landlord and what he/she wants in their establishment. A complete ban is a direct hit on freedom of choice. Also, can anybody explain why there is H&S regulations about smoking that we all have to adhere to but smoking is still legal? Seems a contradiction to me.

How is it a contradiction? We have reams and reams of laws that tell you how to drive your car, without making driving illegal.

Speed limits impinge on my personal freedom to get where I want to be as fast as I choose, but I accept them because I recognise the overall health and safety issues are *more important* than my personal freedom.

Salu · 02-11-2005, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Just trying to point out my view is that its up to an individual to smoke, same should apply to the landlord and what he/she wants in their establishment. A complete ban is a direct hit on freedom of choice. Also, can anybody explain why there is H&S regulations about smoking that we all have to adhere to but smoking is still legal? Seems a contradiction to me.

If you were to wear a goldfish bowl on your head and then smoke then I would have no problem sitting next to you while you enjoyed your right to smoke. The problem arises when your right interferes with mine. We have done this to death in the thread previously btw...

Xaccers · 02-11-2005, 13:25

Are people being forced into smoking establishments?
No.
So why should smokers be forced out of smoking establishments?

clarie · 02-11-2005, 13:26

Xaccers no one is forcing a smoker out of any establisment. Apart from to nip outside for a cigarette.

Salu · 02-11-2005, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salu

If you were to wear a goldfish bowl on your head and then smoke then I would have no problem sitting next to you while you enjoyed your right to smoke. The problem arises when your right interferes with mine. We have done this to death in the thread previously btw...

Taking this a little further; if that goldfish bowl was soundproofed then that would please me even more with some people!

Xaccers · 02-11-2005, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

Xaccers no one is forcing a smoker out of any establisment. Apart from to nip outside for a cigarette.

Currently you have the right to choose whether to go into a smoking establishment or not to eat something.
After the ban, smokers will not have this right.