smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by orangebird

Yes, that's all well and good, but you didn't answer the question -

Sorry, I thought that I made my position pretty clear. Smoking should be illegal. As a step along the road towards making it illegal, I think it should be made as difficult as possible for anybody to smoke. That means a total, outright public ban, as has been introduced in Ireland, New York and (next year) in Scotland.

So yes, if it's not blindingly obvious already, I object to the idea of pubs converting to private members clubs to get round the ban, on the grounds that I think the proposed exemption for private clubs is itself ridiculous.
__________________

Originally Posted by orangebird

1 in 3 people suffer from fallout of death by cancer Chris....I personally have had three members of family die of lung cancer.

Which only makes your dogged support of the habit all the more difficult to understand.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Sorry, I thought that I made my position pretty clear. Smoking should be illegal. As a step along the road towards making it illegal, I think it should be made as difficult as possible for anybody to smoke. That means a total, outright public ban, as has been introduced in Ireland, New York and (next year) in Scotland.

So yes, if it's not blindingly obvious already, I object to the idea of pubs converting to private members clubs to get round the ban, on the grounds that I think the proposed exemption for private clubs is itself ridiculous.
__________________



Which only makes your dogged support of the habit all the more difficult to understand.

It's a habit, and an addiction. One which I do not have the will to give up yet.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by lippy

Correct!

A public house is open to the public,
it doesn't mean you can enter (of your own free choice) and dictate how someone runs their business.

If you don't like places were people smoke, don't go there!

Or, Lippy to turn it round...

A public house is open to the public,
it doesn't mean you can enter (of your own free choice) and dictate how someone runs their business.

If you don't like smoke free places were people don't smoke, don't go there!

Originally Posted by orangebird

It's a habit, and an addiction. One which I do not have the will to give up yet.

I can understand that, OB - I've been pestering my dad to give up for as long as I can remember. He's stopped a couple of times but always gone back eventually.

But why put up such a determined defence of the freedom to smoke?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

It is *not* merely a personal choice when you indulge in an activity that you are fully aware is likely to kill you and leave your family and friends to pick up the pieces. It is irresponsible selfishness of the highest order.

What I would like to see is a progressive tightening of laws regulating smoking so that it becomes increasingly difficult to do it anywhere other than in a private house and is eventually outlawed altogether.

But many activities are likely to kill you. Driving a car, eating the wrong types of food, obesity and lack of exercise, etc. Where do you draw the line? I think we have to let people make up their minds as to the activities they engage in.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I can understand that, OB - I've been pestering my dad to give up for as long as I can remember. He's stopped a couple of times but always gone back eventually.

But why put up such a determined defence of the freedom to smoke?

Why not? My main argument is for the freedom of those that run the businesses to choose whether they allow smoking on their own property. Property that the general public have a choice of whether the visit or not.

[Salu]

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. 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.

You're right about the impact on A&E depts regarding drinking. I have spent many Saturday nights sewing up drunkard's heads and other parts; however don't underestimate the level of illness that smoking brings to A&E. Asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, pneumonia, COPD etc etc. We are very busy with many many respiratory diseases and a large proportional of them are smoking related.

[Angua]

Out of our full team of 8 Domino players only 3 smoke (it was 4 but one has recently stopped, of the rest only one has never smoked). Of the Crib team there is only 3 of the 8 as well (this time 2 have never smoked). These are games that are frequently played by older persons and dyed in the wool pub users and, when playing against non smokers they tend to cut down on the numbers smoked.

I suspect there would be fewer problems than feared were smoking to be banned. (they would all play Aunt Sally instead)

Originally Posted by orangebird

Why not? My main argument is for the freedom of those that run the businesses to choose whether they allow smoking on their own property. Property that the general public have a choice of whether the visit or not.

I understand that too. But in this case, there's an irreconcilable difference between the commercial pressures faced by publicans and the social and economic cost of smoking. This whole debate has been about trying to establish which takes priority over which*. I don't expect this thread will conclude with one side or the other changing their minds, but I don't mind admitting that I'm very pleased the anti-smoking lobby appears to be winning the argument at Whitehall.

* BBKing-stylee footnote: There has also been a fair bit of 'bah! you just want everything your own way!' but I don't think that should detract from the issues that are genuinely at the centre of this.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Seriously Clarie, don't post clap trap like that, it only serves to make you look either ill informed or ignorant You haven't got a clue have you?

I am yet to hear what I am actually wrong about in what I said...landlords do have to work in the interest in health and safety issues. If you, as a landlady didn't, then I am eternally grateful I didn't wander into your pub. (Although sounds like I might have been refused service anyway ).

Originally Posted by orangebird

1 in 3 people suffer from fallout of death by cancer Chris....I personally have had three members of family die of lung cancer.

Sorry to hear about your family. As Chris T said, it makes it harder to understand why you defend the habit so much.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But many activities are likely to kill you. Driving a car, eating the wrong types of food, obesity and lack of exercise, etc. Where do you draw the line? I think we have to let people make up their minds as to the activities they engage in.

I agree to a point. But as has been stated, most of the activities you mention do not have an effect on other people. The one that does, driving a car, well I imagine as soon as it becomes readily possible for people to use safer fuels, they will. At the moment it isn't widely available.

I am yet to hear a good argument for why there can't be sealed rooms made available for smokers in all pubs and bars.

I am happy to announce my locals all serve food!

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by clarie

I am yet to hear what I am actually wrong about in what I said...landlords do have to work in the interest in health and safety issues. If you, as a landlady didn't, then I am eternally grateful I didn't wander into your pub. (Although sounds like I might have been refused service anyway ).

<snip>

You're definition of what a public house is and what it's oblged to do -

Pub by the way, is short for public house. Therefore the landlord is duty bound to provide for the public,

The landlord has to abide by health and safety laws. And that's all - they're not bound to provide anything else for the 'public' at all.

Did you actually read my post? I'm fully trained as a licensee, and always passed any Health and Safety inspections I had with no issues. But all non-smokers were barred...

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Salu

You're right about the impact on A&E depts regarding drinking. I have spent many Saturday nights sewing up drunkard's heads and other parts; however don't underestimate the level of illness that smoking brings to A&E. Asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, pneumonia, COPD etc etc. We are very busy with many many respiratory diseases and a large proportional of them are smoking related.

I fully appreciate what the affects of smoking and passive smoking may be. Most deaths,around 75%, that may be a result of smoking and passive smoking in this country are in the over 65 year old category and we should hopefully see a reduction in line with the percentage of the population being smokers in years to come. One of the problems with a total ban on smoking in all public places including all pubs is that smokers may choose to stay at home where they can smoke and put other members of their family, particularly their children, at more risk.

The problem with banning smoking on health issues because it may be the single pursuit that causes most premature deaths is that something else takes it place as the highest killer. That may be alcohol so do we then ban alcohol from all public places and pubs then only serve non-alcoholic drinks?

Many things in life pose a risk to your health and we cannot ban them all. What we can do is choose whether to participate or not. No one is forcing people to smoke or be in a smoky environment, traffic fumes excepted.

[etccarmageddon]

a suppose there is a benefit in having (some of these) people in pubs smoking - it keeps them away from being at home smoking in front of their kids.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by orangebird

You're definition of what a public house is and what it's oblged to do -

Quote:
Pub by the way, is short for public house. Therefore the landlord is duty bound to provide for the public,


The landlord has to abide by health and safety laws. And that's all - they're not bound to provide anything else for the 'public' at all.

What you are talking about is like a private members' club. Otherwise, I can't imagine a pub getting very far if they weren't providing for the public...

Originally Posted by orangebird

Did you actually read my post? I'm fully trained as a licensee, and always passed any Health and Safety inspections I had with no issues. But all non-smokers were barred...

Yes I did read your post. I didn't mean I would be banned as a non-smoker. I meant that if you didn't like the look of me I might be banned.

I am sure you did pass all of your health and safety inspections I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that smoking is a health issue that should be taken into account.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The problem with banning smoking on health issues because it may be the single pursuit that causes most premature deaths is that something else takes it place as the highest killer. That may be alcohol so do we then ban alcohol from all public places and pubs then only serve non-alcoholic drinks?

Ian, that has to be one of the most thoroughly illogical things I have read on this forum in quite some time. If we decide not to act on something because it may in the future mean we have to act on something else, then we might as well tear up every piece of health and safety legislation ever passed in this country!

I'm not afraid to allow alcohol to come under the spotlight at some point in the future - personally I don't think it requires a ban; unlike smoking, the dangers of alcohol have been understood for millennia and by and large we cope with them pretty well. Smoking, on the other hand, has been understood to be dangerous for something like 50 years at most and so in historical terms we are still in the very early stages of reversing the tide of addiction.

Plus, of course, smoking is not only slightly more injurious to health than alcohol, it is a whole order of magnitude worse. If health and safety issues continue to extend at their current rate, no-one will be looking for a ban on alcohol (whose sale and consumption, by the way, is currently *more* restrictive than tobacco) any time this century.