smoking and the pub

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by clarie

Why on earth would a non-smoker want to go into a sealed smoking room?

Because it's possible to have a chat with a smoker. The non-smokers have got their heads stuck where the sun doesn't shine which makes any decent conversation just about non-existent.

[SlackDad]

I know, before anybody reminds me, that you can't ignore one issue just because little is being done about another, but did this article (from Gareth's post) not at least make anybody think where the Government should have started?

Every year, according to a paper published by the British Medical Journal, some 54 bar staff in the UK die as a result of their exposure to other people's cigarette smoke. And every year, according to the EU, some 39,000 deaths in this country are caused or hastened by air pollution, most of which comes from vehicles. This is a problem three orders of magnitude greater than the one that has filled the newspapers for the past six months, and no one is talking about it.

Taken from here, (originally posted by Gareth).

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

My argument throughout has been that the 'choice' afforded to non-smokers is an illusion. For a start, there are virtually no non-smoking pubs. And to follow, in those pubs which have 'separate' areas, I have never once been in one where the non-smoking section is entirely smoke free, *except* in very large establishments, where it is possible to sit a long, long way from the smoke.

You know some very bad pubs then Chris, come down here where all the restaurants/pubs I know with no-smoking areas are free from smoke.
I have the choice, I use my right to choose, I don't like the thought of that right being removed from me.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Because it's possible to have a chat with a smoker. The non-smokers have got their heads stuck where the sun doesn't shine.

Once again needlessly offensive, and surprising as I thought I was on the ignore list...

Anyway those people who want to go in and chat with a smoker, well that's fine. The point of a sealed smoking room would be to protect those who actually take an active interest in their own health.

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

See you're point there on H&S but I still stand with the individual's right to allow or not allow smoking in their own establishment. Same goes for the individual right to smoke or not to smoke and to be given a choice of freedom where that takes place.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

My argument throughout has been that the 'choice' afforded to non-smokers is an illusion. For a start, there are virtually no non-smoking pubs. And to follow, in those pubs which have 'separate' areas, I have never once been in one where the non-smoking section is entirely smoke free, *except* in very large establishments, where it is possible to sit a long, long way from the smoke.

Crikey, you should consider moving to Swindon, mate I can (and already have) give you names of 3 pubs within walking distance of my house where you can go without the need to wear a gas mask... and I don't even live in the town centre!
__________________

...or Leighton Buzzard, by the sounds of it, if Swindon doesn't float your boat
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

Why on earth would a non-smoker want to go into a sealed smoking room?

I dunno... but it seems that non-smokers like to be able to go in to them at the moment, and that's what they're moaning about.

Originally Posted by Gareth

Crikey, you should consider moving to Swindon, mate I can (and already have) give you names of 3 pubs within walking distance of my house where you can go without the need to wear a gas mask... and I don't even live in the town centre!
__________________

...or Leighton Buzzard, by the sounds of it, if Swindon doesn't float your boat

Try Scotland, where the concept of a non-smoking section in any cafe is often still considered a novelty. It is atrocious up here. Thankfully, there will be a complete and utter ban on all smoking in public from next April.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by clarie

Once again needlessly offensive, and surprising as I thought I was on the ignore list...

I was starting to miss your patronising ignorance

Anyway those people who want to go in and chat with a smoker, well that's fine. The point of a sealed smoking room would be to protect those who actually take an active interest in their own health.

Yep, loving the patronisation....

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

See you're point there on H&S but I still stand with the individual's right to allow or not allow smoking in their own establishment. Same goes for the individual right to smoke or not to smoke and to be given a choice of freedom where that takes place.

There's also the issue that with breaking motoring laws such as dangerous driving, you could spin off the road and take out a pedestrian, whereas with smoking, passive smokers have a choice whether to be in danger or not.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

There's also the issue that with breaking motoring laws such as dangerous driving, you could spin off the road and take out a pedestrian, whereas with smoking, passive smokers have a choice whether to be in danger or not.

[Gareth]

Maybe we should just ban pubs instead - that would be a lot simpler, in my opinion, as we'd all lose out!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Gareth

I dunno... but it seems that non-smokers like to be able to go in to them at the moment, and that's what they're moaning about.

Exactly.
Does make it sound like the rambling association though. We want to go there because we can't, and we want the people already there to make way for us becasue we're so important.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

There's also the issue that with breaking motoring laws such as dangerous driving, you could spin off the road and take out a pedestrian, whereas with smoking, passive smokers have a choice whether to be in danger or not.

Good point.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I was starting to miss your patronising ignorance

If you can point me in the direction of an ignorant comment then I might take you seriously. Otherwise I might suggest leaving the little digs out of an otherwise interesting thread.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

There's also the issue that with breaking motoring laws such as dangerous driving, you could spin off the road and take out a pedestrian, whereas with smoking, passive smokers have a choice whether to be in danger or not.

If we are acknowledging that passive smoking is dangerous I can't see why there is even a debate here. Why should the dangerous habit of a minority be allowed to risk the healths of the majority. It is truly ridiculous and only allowed because smoking has been around for so long.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Exactly.
Does make it sound like the rambling association though. We want to go there because we can't, and we want the people already there to make way for us becasue we're so important.

That's exactly what it sounds like.