smoking and the pub

[shawty]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

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.

Its not pointless at all. Breathing in smoke wether or not you have a health problem IS dangerous for your health. This is a point blank fact, the lungs are not designed to breath in smoke, thats not how the Human body works. This has nothing to do with none smokers being selfish, only we cant fathem out why it is so much bother to go and smoke 20 metres which is outside, rather than make everyone breath it in, of which some of them people might have health problems, like myself.

Also there is no smokers side to the argument, they are arguing for arguments sake and I have seen all the arguements they come up with, none of which top the most important factor in debates about this topic, the persons health who is sat a few chairs away from the smoker, who either before the ban had no choice of either not going to the pub or going and suffering, not just from health problems, but stinking also. Walking 20 metres outside to smoke for 3 minutes, is much better than a smoke filled pub and much better than sending customers who want a none smoking pub, 1 mile down the road.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by shawty

Its not pointless at all. Breathing in smoke wether or not you have a health problem IS dangerous for your health. This is a point blank fact, the lungs are not designed to breath in smoke, thats not how the Human body works. This has nothing to do with none smokers being selfish, only we cant fathem out why it is so much bother to go and smoke 20 metres which is outside, rather than make everyone breath it in, of which some of them people might have health problems, like myself.

If we are going to bring health into it, might I point out that your body was not designed to process Alcohol either. Or meat. Although we have evolved the ability to deal with meat, Alcohol still does as much (if not more) damage as smoke. Admittedly, as long as you just drink, and don't get violent or drive, you are just damaging yourself.

Also there is no smokers side to the argument, they are arguing for arguments sake and I have seen all the arguements they come up with, none of which top the most important factor in debates about this topic, the persons health who is sat a few chairs away from the smoker, who either before the ban had no choice of either not going to the pub or going and suffering, not just from health problems, but stinking also. Walking 20 metres outside to smoke for 3 minutes, is much better than a smoke filled pub and much better than sending customers who want a none smoking pub, 1 mile down the road.

Depends where you live. I should imagine that in most towns (certainly in the South East and London), there is more than one pub a mile.

[shawty]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

If we are going to bring health into it, might I point out that your body was not designed to process Alcohol either. Or meat. Although we have evolved the ability to deal with meat, Alcohol still does as much (if not more) damage as smoke. Admittedly, as long as you just drink, and don't get violent or drive, you are just damaging yourself.



Depends where you live. I should imagine that in most towns (certainly in the South East and London), there is more than one pub a mile.

Obviously both these points are not real points are they. Like you said, I dont get violent or sick when I drink, so the only person I am affecting, is myself. That is my choice. Before smoking was banned, I had no real choice now did I, you cant equate the two together as smoking damages both people.

Your last point again, is no real point as you mention, it depends where you live. What it would also depend on (if they let people choose to open smoking or none smoking pubs) is maybe the 3 pubs within 200 metres are all smoking and the none smoking one is 1 mile away.

The whole issue is entirely moot now as smoking is banned in public spaces..so is it really worthwhile pursuing this avenue of discussion?

[Hom3r]

Any minute cash the government lose from ciggies, they are getting a 1,000 times plus from fuel duty

Wow 9-10 billion just became minute .

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by David F

I have always supported the ban 100%. The rights of the smoker have never been more important than the rights of the non smoker and for the smoker to have his rights infinges on the non smoker. This of course could lead to ill health not just for the smoker but for the non smoker also so the smoker is inflicting personal injury and therefore the ban is just

There were way's to stop smoke getting to other areas of pubs but they weren't even considered, no far better for nanny to tell us what to do under threat of prosecution, next time some one moans about CCTV or 42 day detention it might be worth considering that we are getting exactly what we deserve

---------- Post added at 17:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

It is unfair to ask them to do so now there is such a wealth of evidence that even passive smoking can be deadly. That is why there are so few exemptions. Allowing smoking areas to continue would have completely defeated the primary purpose of the legislation.

You know the chap that proved the link between smoking and cancer isn't convinced by the passive smoking arguments.

---------- Post added at 17:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Nidge

So 400,000 have quit, the duty on a £5.00 packet of ciggies is for arguments sake £4.00, 400,000 used to smoke 20 a day they have since packed up thats a loss of £1,600,000 in duty per day, add that over the year and you have £83,200,000 in lost revenue, that's alot of money slipping through the treasury's hands, this loss will have to be clawed back, which way is it going to be clawed back?? Hike beer up to £4.00 a pint? Hike up petrol and diesel again? Up VAT to 20% it's got to come from somewhere.

Keep hitting the smokers who get a raw deal every time, there are more alcoholics in this country than there are people who suffer from smoking related diseases.

There is no need to hike fuel up they are already making unexpected billions from it and I remember hearing an interesting report saying that even at the height of the smuggling the government hadn't lost a penny in revenue, the 'health tax' that they put on every year is covering the losses and more, I bet that equated to more than 400 000 people quitting at it's height.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------

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.

That is hardly fair, 83 million missing is still 83 million missing regardless of how many billions you have, it still has to be accounted for assuming I was wrong in my last statement

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You know the chap that proved the link between smoking and cancer isn't convinced by the passive smoking arguments.

As an argument, that's a fallacy - an appeal to authority.

That is hardly fair, 83 million missing is still 83 million missing regardless of how many billions you have, it still has to be accounted for assuming I was wrong in my last statement

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be accounted for, I'm suggesting that Nidge was overstating the impact of its loss to the Exchequer.

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Chris T

As an argument, that's a fallacy - an appeal to authority.

So what's quoting reams of ASH funded research?

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be accounted for, I'm suggesting that Nidge was overstating the impact of its loss to the Exchequer.

This may be true if the government has enough money to run the country (in which case where's my rebate?) but otherwise it still has to be replaced. Add to that that its 400000 so far, say another 200-300k people stop in the next year, and the year after that... The hole in the finances gets bigger.

So they ramp up tax on tabacco causing the black market to soar (even more) until they've effectively priced legitimate smokers out of the market.

All that tax will have to be replaced and eventually it won't be just by smokers.

Originally Posted by Paddy1

So what's quoting reams of ASH funded research?

... and that's another fallacy: ad hominem.

This may be true if the government has enough money to run the country (in which case where's my rebate?) but otherwise it still has to be replaced. Add to that that its 400000 so far, say another 200-300k people stop in the next year, and the year after that... The hole in the finances gets bigger.

You're still not taking adequate account of the relative size of the amount compared to the overall budget. £48 million is absolutely tiny. Such an amount can be saved by shelving a couple of initiatives here and there, that very few people will ever notice. It is far, far away from the "oh no we can't afford to build that hospital!" scale of budget cutting.

A £48 million hole doesn't have to be plugged, they can just rearrange the furniture to hide it.

So they ramp up tax on tabacco causing the black market to soar (even more) until they've effectively priced legitimate smokers out of the market.

All that tax will have to be replaced and eventually it won't be just by smokers.

Yes, the tax revenue from smoking will eventually need to be found from elsewhere. And it will be. The key thing is, change is happening at a gradual enough pace for it to be planned for.

Unless you're suggesting that it's beneficial that we let a few hundred thousand people needlessly kill themselves in order to help keep the country afloat?

Bumpetty bump ... some interesting info in Mark Easton's BBC News Blog today that puts a different slant on the Pub industry's ongoing claims that it's getting slaughtered by the smoking ban:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._are_evol.html

Originally Posted by Chris

Bumpetty bump ... some interesting info in Mark Easton's BBC News Blog today that puts a different slant on the Pub industry's ongoing claims that it's getting slaughtered by the smoking ban:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._are_evol.html

Interesting. I personally much prefer Pubs where they do good food. You can go in, sit down, have a meal and talk while continuing to order drinks throughout the evening. Pubs which don't serve food usually means a case of eating before or after. As for the smoking ban, I would classify it a success, on the rare occasion I get smoke in my face I am reminded of how unpleasant it is and as a result how much nicer pubs are not they are not full of smoke.

Parameters have been changed and the slew of places that have gotten alcohol selling licences in my town are certainly not pubs but i bet they are included in the figures. I always wanted a compromise so that all groups had a fair and equal choice and i still believe that is and was the best solution. End of the day come on figures coming out to support the ban were always going to happen and the bbc reporting them in anyway is also no surprise given how far up the backside of this government they are .

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Parameters have been changed and the slew of places that have gotten alcohol selling licences in my town are certainly not pubs but i bet they are included in the figures. I always wanted a compromise so that all groups had a fair and equal choice and i still believe that is and was the best solution. End of the day come on figures coming out to support the ban were always going to happen and the bbc reporting them in anyway is also no surprise given how far up the backside of this government they are .

Well he gave and analysed the data. Dismissing it as the BBC being biased in favour of the government is not a valid counter-argument. It's the classic get out clause when anyone has statistical analysis they don't like; Say the figures are manipulated and the media is biased and move on.

There cannot have been that many new places applying for licences which are not pubs and did not have a licence before. Restaurants and others would have had licences before hand as well.

The main points of the article seem to be that some pubs are 'closing' when in actual fact they are changing classification. There is a reduction of drink-only pubs but there is an increase in 'pubs' serving food and drink. Finally he points forward evidence that pubs may be more popular than before. Presumably as they now double as a destination for food.

If anything the statistics seem to have been manipulated by the pro-smoking lobby to try and claim pubs are closing across the country when they are simply changing.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Parameters have been changed and the slew of places that have gotten alcohol selling licences in my town are certainly not pubs but i bet they are included in the figures.

Well yes, they have - but that's exactly the point of the article. 'Pubs' as we have understood them during the 20th century are giving way to other kinds of establishment. Easton quotes analyst Jon Collins who says:

If your whole market is 50-60 year-old males who have two pints and a smoke in the boozer on the way home from work, you are going to struggle. Now those customers are buying four cans of cheap lager from the supermarket and having a cigarette in their own home.

So the answer is to diversify. If people are staying away because they can't smoke, offer something else that is more tempting than the prospect of a fag and a can of wifebeater in the livingroom.

I always wanted a compromise so that all groups had a fair and equal choice and i still believe that is and was the best solution. End of the day come on figures coming out to support the ban were always going to happen and the bbc reporting them in anyway is also no surprise given how far up the backside of this government they are .

Oh come on ... the BBC are a news organisation. Reporting this stuff is what they do. One article does not an agenda make.