smoking and the pub - Page 11

Salu · 25-10-2005, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

And the tax that is paid in cigarettes more than makes up for the cost.
__________________

I can afford to smoke and run a car. And with all the tax that I pay out for these luxuries, I should bloody well have a choice of what I can or can't do in my own local.

That statement makes you come across as very selfish and not caring to other people's rights. Are you?

Surely knowing that by selfishly doing something that you enjoy was harming your fellow humans you could find some compassionate motivation to take that vice to another location?

orangebird · 25-10-2005, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salu

That statement makes you come across as very selfish and not caring to other people's rights. Are you?

Surely knowing that by selfishly doing something that you enjoy was harming your fellow humans you could find some compassionate motivation to take that vice to another location?

I would if there was a choice, but an outright ban doesn't make that possible does it?

90% of the regulars in my local smoke. Sp we're happy where we are. The pub next door is mre than happy to go totally non-smoking. So there's the outlet for the non smokers. But that apparently is not good enough.

clarie · 25-10-2005, 14:03

I am not sure that I agree with this notion that what pubs we drink in should be dictated by whether or not we are willing to passively smoke. A smoker should have the right to continue to smoke if they wish perhaps, but a non-smoker shouldn't be subject to that, and shouldn't have to change their choice of venue to avoid cigarette smoke. It's well known to be a risk, and one that could be easily avoided.

Perhaps there should be a separate smoking room for smokers, in a separate building. And no I don't mean a different pub. I mean an outhouse where smokers can literally go and sit and take their drinks to have their cigarette.

Russ · 25-10-2005, 14:13

As much as I'm against smoking (I'm one of the smug gits who has never smoked), I don't see a total ban being worthwhile. Yes it'll mean my daughter and I can go to any family pub without worrying about coming away with that horrible musty smell that you find on most smokers, but what is fair to all (which is what you normally find in a democrasy) would be choice - if you want to slowly kill yourself and stink of an old ashtray then fine, you go and do that. However there should be a lot more incentive for publicans to offer 'non-smoking' nights or even a complete ban in their own premises.
__________________

Interstlingly, a few years ago I was waiting on a bus-stop and a woman next to me was puffing away. I had my discman on, and rather loud it would seem as she felt the need to say to me "I can hear your music".

My reply was "I can smell your smoke".

She muttered something about "cheeky git"....

orangebird · 25-10-2005, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

As much as I'm against smoking (I'm one of the smug gits who has never smoked), I don't see a total ban being worthwhile. Yes it'll mean my daughter and I can go to any family pub without worrying about coming away with that horrible musty smell that you find on most smokers, but what is fair to all (which is what you normally find in a democrasy) would be choice - if you want to slowly kill yourself and stink of an old ashtray then fine, you go and do that. However there should be a lot more incentive for publicans to offer 'non-smoking' nights or even a complete ban in their own premises.
__________________

Interstlingly, a few years ago I was waiting on a bus-stop and a woman next to me was puffing away. I had my discman on, and rather loud it would seem as she felt the need to say to me "I can hear your music".

My reply was "I can smell your smoke".

She muttered something about "cheeky git"....

Great post Russ. That's what it should be about - choice.

Salu · 25-10-2005, 15:13

But it can't be about choice if one of the choices inhibits the choice of the other party. I agree with Russ in that the way forward should be the fairest to all. That is what democracy is about.
I may want to drive at 75 through the city centre but it is potentially dangerous to others and therefore the greater need is the safety of others and not my "need" to speed. Hence a 30 mile per hour speed limit.

orangebird · 25-10-2005, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salu

But it can't be about choice if one of the choices inhibits the choice of the other party. I agree with Russ in that the way forward should be the fairest to all. That is what democracy is about.

So there should be a choice of smoking and non smoking pubs. It's not rocket science is it?!

Quote:

I may want to drive at 75 through the city centre but it is potentially dangerous to others and therefore the greater need is the safety of others and not my "need" to speed. Hence a 30 mile per hour speed limit.

Speeding is an offence. Smoking is not. Not yet anyway....

Russ · 25-10-2005, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Speeding is an offence. Smoking is not. Not yet anyway....

I'd prefer to think you obey laws out of common sense, not because you have to. On that basis I see Salu's point.

orangebird · 25-10-2005, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'd prefer to think you obey laws out of common sense, not because you have to. On that basis I see Salu's point.

And I'd like to think that laws were made out of common sense in the first place. My point was that going over 30mph is illegal anyway, and smoking isn't, so it's not a very good comparison.

Russ · 25-10-2005, 15:26

Salu wasn't talking about the legal aspect - he was referring to the safety of others being more important than his own need.

**Chris** · 25-10-2005, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

And I'd like to think that laws were made out of common sense in the first place. My point was that going over 30mph is illegal anyway, and smoking isn't, so it's not a very good comparison.

It's a very good comparison - there was a time when there were no speed limits, and then somebody decided it would be a good idea to introduce them for the sake of the health and safety of the majority. Now someone has decided to do the same with smoking.

clarie · 25-10-2005, 15:27

I think that we need to get back to the nitty gritty here. Smoking kills, and it doesn't just kill the smoker, but those around him/her too. I am all for free choice. But for me, that means for example, having a choice of gay and straight bars. A bar where one plays live rock music and a pub where its quiet, or where there is a darts competition on a Sunday. That is about free choice. However smoking is just not the same thing. It is dangerous - highly risky to our health!

As I said earlier i think there should be a separate room/building for smokers. Then, if the smoker's non-smoking friends want to join them - fine! But the other non-smokers, who like the bar, and who don't want to have to change, can also enjoy themselves without the added risk to their health.

orangebird · 25-10-2005, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Salu wasn't talking about the legal aspect - he was referring to the safety of others being more important than his own need.

Either way, it's not a good comparison!! You cannot compare a legal activity to an illegal one.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

I think that we need to get back to the nitty gritty here. Smoking kills, and it doesn't just kill the smoker, but those around him/her too. I am all for free choice. But for me, that means for example, having a choice of gay and straight bars. A bar where one plays live rock music and a pub where its quiet, or where there is a darts competition on a Sunday. That is about free choice. However smoking is just not the same thing. It is dangerous - highly risky to our health!

As I said earlier i think there should be a separate room/building for smokers. Then, if the smoker's non-smoking friends want to join them - fine! But the other non-smokers, who like the bar, and who don't want to have to change, can also enjoy themselves without the added risk to their health.

Yep,a nd they could do that if there were smoking and non smoking pubs too.

Salu · 25-10-2005, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Speeding is an offence. Smoking is not. Not yet anyway....

True......but it is offensive!

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

So there should be a choice of smoking and non smoking pubs. It's not rocket science is it?!

Very hard to legislate though and who would decide which it is? Would you not know which it was until you walked in the door? How would restaurants fit into this?

I still think that a total ban is the best and easiest way forward. You don't take a bottle of wine into a cinema or your office, you just wait until you are in your own home or own time.

I wouldn't have a problem with a smoking club though. You would know what to expect and it would be clear of it's purpose. With pubs and restaurants it would need to be a blanket ban to make it clear.

Russ · 25-10-2005, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangebird

Either way, it's not a good comparison!! You cannot compare a legal activity to an illegal one.

Yes you can if you look at the principle of it which I believe Salu was talking about. For example, speeding is subjective. 80 mph on the motorway is illegal yet in German it's not. Yet smoking kills no matter where it's done.