smoking and the pub

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Bill C

You will all be demanding they don't smoke in there own homes next in case the smoke goes up the chimney and you inhale it in the street.

[Kliro]

Gah, this is pretty pointless now, we're getting about as far as a rhino in sinking sand, I have reasons for preferring none smoking, you have yours for smoking.

One other thing I'd add is that a ban would stop younger people from starting to smoke. I've got freinds who only started smoking when out in town because they thought it made them look good, and now they'r smoking 20+/day. Im fairly sure they wouldn't be smoking now if the places in town hadn't allowed it.

Originally Posted by clarie

And you will be suggesting next that I allow smokers into my house to smoke as much as they want because otherwise they do not have FREE CHOICE about where they smoke.

No because its your house to do as you wish. I am not saying you have to allow them in i am saying that you have the right to say they can or cannot. The owner of the pub should have the same right. I have the choice of where i drink smoking or none smoking. I am i present not forced to enter the smoking pub.
__________________

Originally Posted by Kliro

Gah, this is pretty pointless now, we're getting about as far as a rhino in sinking sand, I have reasons for preferring none smoking, you have yours for smoking.

One other thing I'd add is that a ban would stop younger people from starting to smoke. I've got freinds who only started smoking when out in town because they thought it made them look good, and now they'r smoking 20+/day. Im fairly sure they wouldn't be smoking now if the places in town hadn't allowed it.

like the ban on drugs stop's them getting hooked on drugs There are more on drugs now than there ever was

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I think plenty of us get it OB, it's just we don't think the fact that a particular individual owns a place confers automatic right for them to decide what goes on in that place, especially when you wish to invite the public in.

INVITE!!!!! So you enter at your own will!!!! Not force!!!!!!

The Law already places huge restrictions on what she can do in her premises, covering health and safety, treatment of staff, permitted hours of serving alcohol, minimum age of customers buying the alcohol ... the argument that it's her place, so she should decide, really doesn't stand up.

So you think it's OK to risk her business over a LEGAL activity, when there are other options? Maybe if you ran your own business and our wonderful govenment puts a law in place that send your business that you keep your family on t1ts up, and you might see it differently.

Originally Posted by Bill C

No because its your house to do as you wish. I am not saying you have to allow them in i am saying that you have the right to say they can or cannot. The owner of the pub should have the same right. I have the choice of where i drink smoking or none smoking. I am i present not forced to enter the smoking pub.

That is already not the case, as I said in answer to OB above. The landlord has no choice but to obey laws outlawing sale of alcohol to under 18s. The landlord has no choice over provision of adequate fire escapes and firefighting equipment. The landlord has no choice but to take out adequate pubilc liability insurance.

There are a whole raft of legal restrictions on what the landlord can do, because the moment they open the doors to the public, it is not simply their house, it is a public house, and the law has a lot to say on matters of pubilc health and safety - which is exactly what the smoking issue is.

[punky]

Originally Posted by clarie

Is it not obvious? What if my favourite bars become smoking places? I won't be able to go to them then. I don't want my choice of bars to be restricted because I want to enjoy good health.

If the majority of people support your view then the pub will be non-smoking. Free market capitalism is the best legistlator you could ever want/need.

Does strike me as being a tad selfish too. As Bill said, its their bar, not yours.

I am really not in favour of the government dictating to everyone what they can or can't do. Let the people decide for themselves what they want to do.

Originally Posted by orangebird

INVITE!!!!! So you enter at your own will!!!! Not force!!!!!!

Would you consider it reasonable to abandon all fire safety regs that apply to pubilc buildings and then leave the punters the free choice over whether they spend their evening in a fire escape or non-fire escape pub? There is absolutely no difference. When the health risks are considered great enough, we legislate to enforce minimum standards. It applies to alcohol drinking, fire safety, road safety, and soon, not before time, smoking.

So you think it's OK to risk her business over a LEGAL activity, when there are other options? Maybe if you ran your own business and our wonderful govenment puts a law in place that send your business that you keep your family on t1ts up, and you might see it differently.

I think the English plans to go half way are silly and more likely to pose a risk to her business than the law in Ireland, and (soon) in Scotland, where an outright ban will put everyone on a level playing field. If I were her, I'd accept the way this is going and lobby for an outright ban. Failing that, I'd be looking for ways to diversify and protect my profits. I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but this is not the first time the law has changed to promote health and safety and it won't be the last.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

If the majority of people support your view then the pub will be non-smoking. Free market capitalism is the best legistlator you could ever want/need.

Free market capitalism has never been, and will never be, a good legislator in matters of health and safety.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Would you consider it reasonable to abandon all fire safety regs that apply to pubilc buildings and then leave the punters the free choice over whether they spend their evening in a fire escape or non-fire escape pub? There is absolutely no difference. When the health risks are considered great enough, we legislate to enforce minimum standards. It applies to alcohol drinking, fire safety, road safety, and soon, not before time, smoking.

Why not go the whole hog then and ban supermarkets etc from selling fags at all?

I think the English plans to go half way are silly

Why?? Why are they silly? What's wrong with non and smoking establishments?

and more likely to pose a risk to her business

How? Pray, tell?

than the law in Ireland, and (soon) in Scotland, where an outright ban will put everyone on a level playing field. If I were her, I'd accept the way this is going and lobby for an outright ban. Failing that, I'd be looking for ways to diversify and protect my profits. I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but this is not the first time the law has changed to promote health and safety and it won't be the last.

It's a bar and restaurant, a licensed building which will prove almost impossible to delicense. What do you suggest she diversify into??

Originally Posted by punky

I am really not in favour of the government dictating to everyone what they can or can't do. Let the people decide for themselves what they want to do.

Well the poodle and his spin doctors have ensured that i will never vote for his party again. They have to do something to try and get the public on there side after the fiasco of the last few years and this is one way the other was fox hunting and they ballsed that up as well. It just goes to show what a bunch of idiots are running this country when they cannot make a decision. Now if Bush had told him to do it then it would have been done stright away
__________________

Originally Posted by orangeburg

It's a bar and restaurant, a licensed building which will prove almost impossible to delicense. What do you suggest she diversify into??

Make it a private smokers club

Originally Posted by orangebird

Why not go the whole hog then and ban supermarkets etc from selling fags at all?

There is no doubt that if tobacco were discovered today, it would be illegal. As it is, far too many people are already hooked on it to simply criminalise it overnight. 20 years ago, one in three people smoked and you couldn't talk seriously about banning it in public. Now it's one in four and the proposal is on the table. That, in my view, is good progress. Perhaps one day, another 10 years from now, we can consider restricting the sale of tobacco, and eventually eliminate it altogether. Banning supermarkets from selling it is a very good idea imo.

Why?? Why are they silly? What's wrong with non and smoking establishments?

Because, as you have already pointed out, banning some and not others puts the 'banned' establishments at a competitive disadvantage. Banning all of them levels the playing field. If you can't smoke anywhere, it can't influence your choice of where to go for the evening, can it?

How? Pray, tell?

Described above.

It's a bar and restaurant, a licensed building which will prove almost impossible to delicense. What do you suggest she diversify into??

If I knew the answer to that, I'd be running my own business and not selling my soul to a multinational corporation. But the very fact that your friend has the drive and talent to buy and run her own place suggests that you should maybe have more confidence in her ability to grow her business despite the inconvenience of new health and safety laws.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

<snip>



Because, as you have already pointed out, banning some and not others puts the 'banned' establishments at a competitive disadvantage.

How???

Banning all of them levels the playing field. If you can't smoke anywhere, it can't influence your choice of where to go for the evening, can it?

Until you answer my first question, I really don't get your logic on this bit either.



<snip>[/quote]

Looks like the Cabinet has decided what it wants to do after all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi....stm?display=1

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

Is it not obvious? What if my favourite bars become smoking places? I won't be able to go to them then. I don't want my choice of bars to be restricted because I want to enjoy good health.

In other words you want everything your way.

I would presume that your favourite pubs are already no smoking establishments otherwise you wouldn't be going to them. Why should they suddenly change and allow smoking?

If pubs were given the choice as to whether they are smoking or no smoking establishments then the landlord/owner will take a commercial decision as to which it should be. If they choose to be smoking allowed pubs then surely that tells you something. It means that the majority of customers want to be able to smoke there and the landlord/owner thinks that he will lose more money if he chooses to ban smoking than if he is to allow smoking.

Originally Posted by clarie

If smoking is banned in all public places then your friend's business won't lose out to any other bars. However, were she to provide a smoking room, then she could cater for everyone. And to be honest, whilst I am not suggesting that your friend's livelihood is not important, there are other factors such as health that need to be considered.

It would lose out if the regulars decided to stay at home where they can drink and smoke instead of sitting in a non smoking pub which has lost its atmosphere.

Health is important but smoking is not the only health issue where pubs are concerned. Just look at any hospital A&E department on Friday and Saturday night and you will find it is their busiest time of the week. It is the effects of alcohol that causes most of this increase in patients, not smoking, and some of those patients may not have had a single drink, just suffered because of the ones that have. Maybe they should ban the sale of alcohol in pubs to remove those health issues. You can avoid the risks from passive smoking by taking the decision not to go into places that allow smoking. Avoiding being a casualty at the hands of someone who has consumed too much alcohol is harder to do.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Looks like the Cabinet has decided what it wants to do after all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi....stm?display=1

So the poodle has b***s after all well done on a democratic decision

Originally Posted by orangebird

How???

Well, 25% of people smoke, so that's a large chunk of the pub-going population that is automatically going to go only to a smoking pub if they want an evening out. You're not going to go to Wetherspoons are you, they serve food so you can't smoke there, even if you don't plan to order food yourself.

Add to that a proportion of non-smokers who don't mind too much about smoke, certainly not enough to want to leave their smoking friends out of the group on a night out, and the number of people in the city centre on a Friday night who are only going to choose among the smoking pubs grows further. The non-smoking establishments can do nothing to attract back this sizeable chunk of their potential clientele without stopping serving food.

Until you answer my first question, I really don't get your logic on this bit either.

The only way for a ban to be commercially fair is for it to be a universal ban - hopefully my reply above is clearer now?