smoking and the pub

[Neil]

Originally Posted by orangebird

That's because you're reasonable, and don't consider yourself above those that are weaker willed than you.

Good point.

[smicer07]

Pointless debate ultimately. Smokers are usually selfish people who only think about themselves, which is why they can't understand the non-smoker's viewpoint.

Originally Posted by smicer07

Pointless debate ultimately. Smokers are usually selfish people who only think about themselves, which is why they can't understand the non-smoker's viewpoint.

I am a non smoker and i can see both view points. I see it as a Government restricting even more of my rights and making a complete and utter balls up of anything they do. I am happy to make a choice of which pub or club i give my well earned cash to.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by smicer07

Pointless debate ultimately. Smokers are usually selfish people who only think about themselves, which is why they can't understand the non-smoker's viewpoint.

Nice sweeping generalisation there Si.

How about this...

Originally Posted by smicer07

Pointless debate ultimately. Non-Smokers are usually selfish people who only think about themselves, which is why they can't understand the smoker's viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Neil

Nice sweeping generalisation there Si.

How about this...

Nice veiwpoint. Very sharp

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by smicer07

Pointless debate ultimately. Smokers are usually selfish people who only think about themselves, which is why they can't understand the non-smoker's viewpoint.

Equally, some of the non smokers in this thread are selfish people who not only want everything their way but want to restrict a person who wants to run a pub which allows smoking from having such an establishment. I can understand a non smoker wanting to be able to have a night out in a smoke free atmosphere but cannot understand how they can want to deny the existance of establishments which cater for the smoker.

If you want to eat Chinese food you go to a Chinese restaurant.
If you want to eat Indian food you go to an Indian restaurant.
If you want to go to a smoke free pub then you go to one that has a ban on smoking.
If you want to go to a pub that allows smoking you go to one that allows it.

Freedom of choice is what matters.

[Salu]

My not smoking cannot possible harm any smoker. Any smoker's smoke is dangerous to me and removes my choice not to smoke. I am not against sealed smoking rooms but I will always be against smoking in public areas for this reason.
I have had to treat people who have been diagnosed with lung cancer from passive smoking and their comments are usually around the "it's not fair" angle.

Smokers. It is NOT fair to smoke in public. You are free to smoke on your own or with like minded associates but you should not be permitted to damage other innocent people's lives. If that takes legislation to enforce then so be it. It is not much different to the protection the law proffers to assaulting others. Smoking is an indirect of assault in my opinion.

I welcome this legislation but agree with Chris T that it should be a blanket ban.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

If you want to eat Chinese food you go to a Chinese restaurant.
If you want to eat Indian food you go to an Indian restaurant.
If you want to go to a smoke free pub then you go to one that has a ban on smoking.
If you want to go to a pub that allows smoking you go to one that allows it.

Freedom of choice is what matters.

Nonsmokers outlook on this is .

Whats yours is mine. But whats mine is my own and you cannot have it.

[smicer07]

Sorry but I think everything that's needed to be said from a non-smoking viewpoint as already been stated. Obviously not ALL smokers are selfish people but I feel smoking in front of others is a very selfish act. And as stated above, not smoking doesn't harm anyone, so reversing my comments as Neil did above, doesn't hold water with me. Just my opinion of course

[Hom3r]

I''d be glad when they bring in the smoking ban in the workplace, because all the jobs I have done smokers were alound to have a smoke break of 5mins every hour, and they seldom took less than 15mins. and if you are a non-smoker you have to carry on working. (Smokers had to make up time but never did because the boos smoked)
My last job they had banned smoking on site throughout the company, they had to smoke at the main gate (this brought up new problems because of the amout of fag butts lying in the road, they put in buckets of sand but they filled with cig boxes and wrappers, but they threw unstubbed buts into it and set it on fire.)

I personally feel that smoking should be banned in all public places even if they don't sell food (the Harvey Centre were I live is smoke free unless you smoke in the two cafes, but people smoke regardless antwhere in there ignoring the no smoking signs and PA system.) and have all workpaces smoke free goes without question/

[sir_drinks_alot]

Here we go Again the government wimping out than things get hard. think god they where not in charge during ww2.

Hewitt backs off on smoking ban after Cabinet revolt

Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

[carlingman]

I will post some more points in here when I have time but for now does anyone know if Prison will be classed as a public place and will smoking be banned there if not somewhat double standards spring to mind.

[sir_drinks_alot]

Originally Posted by carlingman

I will post some more points in here when I have time but for now does anyone know if Prison will be classed as a public place and will smoking be banned there if not somewhat double standards spring to mind.

Thay never really think stuff like this Through the Whole thing about where the ban will be is just stupid.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

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.

Since when is making money more important than health? I am sure the landlord would make more money if he watered his drinks down with toilet water but that doesn't make it ok does it!

Pub by the way, is short for public house. Therefore the landlord is duty bound to provide for the public, and to work in the interests of the health of the public. It is not just down to the landlord what he does on his premises, as a publican he has to consider health and safety issues.

As I have said before, freedom of choice is not what is at stake here. Chris T made a very good point when he said that were tobacco to be discovered today, it would be banned. It is a high risk substance. Just because it is currently legal to smoke, doesn't take away from this point. Freedom of choice is what allows gay and straight bars to exist, or live music and jukebox pubs to exist.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

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.

The effects of smoking are not usually ones that result in you being taken to casualty, that's all. And the patients you are talking about probably need stitches cos they have been bottled, or similar. The victims of smoking are probably, (awfully and tragically) over on the terminal ward, or in a hospice, dying of cancer. It's a terrible state of affairs.

[SlackDad]

If stopping smoking in pubs was a sound commercial decision then why haven't more landlords voluntarily banned in. It's a strange situation where, say, the majority of customers may not mind smoking in the pub but where the state is denying this. The landlord should be free to decide on an individual basis in consultation with her/his customers.