smoking and the pub

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Of course smokers take non-smokers into account. For a start they don't charge for all that free nicotine they're blowing into the air for everyone to consume.

Plus, smokers are paying a lot more tax than non-smokers, and although they will (usually) use more NHS resources than non-smokers, they (usually) won't be around to claim the state pension, so are less of a burden on society.

All the non-smokers I see in this thread that are whinging about the inconsiderate smokers should really be more grateful towards them.

[Sarge]

I believe it should be up to the pub owner as to whether or not there will be smoking in their pub. Again, as a non-smoker I still think that is is ok to ban smoking in the work place because people have to work, but people don't have to go to a pub if they don't care for the smoke. What I would like to see if anything is a requirement to get good ventilation that pulls the smoke straight up so it doesn't linger through the pub. the pubs I go to usually have very good ventilation and therefore theres little smoke to worry about.

[fireman328]

Originally Posted by Paul

Wouldn't that be discrimination against non-smokers who wish to remain working at that pub?

It may be discrimination but if all the smokers left the staff would have to be culled and most bar staff I know are not fulltime anyway, usually working in busy times after their regular employment, some have even been known to......shock horror, work for cash in hand, these would be the first to go as they would have no legal standing. It would revert to the old days when the licensee and his partner would run the pub with a barmaid to assist at busy times.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by orangebird

How do you know that? Or is that another wild assumption like what a pub is really for and what the publican has to provide to the public?

Yeah, me and my wild assumptions eh. I mean imagine assuming that a publican has to work in the interests of the public

Originally Posted by orangebird

You don't think there's been any moaing in this thread from non-smokers? Are we reading the same thread??

There has been no more moaning from the non-smokers than there has the smokers. I think the word you are looking for is 'debating'.

Originally Posted by orangebird

Touched a nerve did I?

I rest my case...

Originally Posted by Gareth

All the non-smokers I see in this thread that are whinging about the inconsiderate smokers should really be more grateful towards them.

Interesting point actually. And quite funny too.

[fireman328]

The term "pub" is derived from public house, a house which could be frequented by the public to consume beer, ale and cider, if there is a total ban on smoking then it will not be a "pub" but an exclusive establishment for non smokers, if this were taken to its' full extent it could be deemed discriminatory as certain classes of persons are excluded by reason of non admittance to smokers.
Smoking is not illegal nor is it an offence to be in possesion of smoking materials.
Certain other sustances, subject to control are illegal to have in possession but I wonder how many people you know take the high horse when tobacco is mentioned but will pop a few pills in the club ?

[clarie]

Originally Posted by fireman328

The term "pub" is derived from public house, a house which could be frequented by the public to consume beer, ale and cider, if there is a total ban on smoking then it will not be a "pub" but an exclusive establishment for non smokers, if this were taken to its' full extent it could be deemed discriminatory as certain classes of persons are excluded by reason of non admittance to smokers.

Yeah but it isn't quite that is it. It won't be exclusive to non-smokers, just that the smokers cannot smoke inside the building. If that were the case then we would have to completely stop the term 'public place' from referring to all places where people cannot smoke, such as shopping centres. But what would help to alleviate the discrimination that you think smokers would be subject to would be, as I said earlier, a sealed smoking room or outside building for smokers.

Originally Posted by fireman328

Certain other sustances, subject to control are illegal to have in possession but I wonder how many people you know take the high horse when tobacco is mentioned but will pop a few pills in the club ?

Again I see your point, but the main issue here is that if Joe Bloggs pops a pill, his consumption will not have a direct impact on John Smith's health.

[Hom3r]

Could a MOD add a pole with the following questions: (They are duplicated for the obvious reasons)

Smoker - A complete ban in all public places
Smoker - A ban only in places that serve food
Smoker - There should be no ban
Non-Smoker - A complete ban in all public places
Non-Smoker - A ban only in places that serve food
Non-Smoker - There should be no ban

[fireman328]

Originally Posted by clarie

Yeah but it isn't quite that is it. It won't be exclusive to non-smokers, just that the smokers cannot smoke inside the building. If that were the case then we would have to completely stop the term 'public place' from referring to all places where people cannot smoke, such as shopping centres. But what would help to alleviate the discrimination that you think smokers would be subject to would be, as I said earlier, a sealed smoking room or outside building for smokers.

Again I see your point, but the main issue here is that if Joe Bloggs pops a pill, his consumption will not have a direct impact on John Smith's health.

If Joe Bloggs pops a pill, which is a criminal offence, and then kills by kicking to death John Smith who is waiting in the taxi rank this has a direct impact on John Smith.

This happened in a local town about 2 years ago, Joe Bloggs pleaded not guilty to murder as his mind was disturbed by pills and alcohol. QED

[clarie]

Did Joe Bloggs get convicted?


Anyway this is beside the point. I am not denying the danger of alcohol or illegal drug abuse. But the fact that they are dangerous doesn't mean we should ignore the dangers of smoking.

Originally Posted by fireman328

If Joe Bloggs pops a pill, which is a criminal offence, and then kills by kicking to death John Smith who is waiting in the taxi rank this has a direct impact on John Smith.

This happened in a local town about 2 years ago, Joe Bloggs pleaded not guilty to murder as his mind was disturbed by pills and alcohol. QED

This is the second tortuous story that has now been conjoured up by people who appear desperate to portray alcohol as being as dangerous to third parties as tobacco is.

This is totally ridiculous. For a start, alcohol simply is not dangerous to someone who happens to be sitting next to someone who is drinking it, in anything like the sense that tobacco is. To claim otherwise is absurd, and, frankly, clutching at straws just a little. Secondly, even if alcohol were as dangerous (and it is not), it is plain illogical to suggest this fact as a reason not to do anything about tobacco. If it were the case, the solution would be to ban both. But as it's not, why don't we confine ourselves to a sensible discussion based on facts and not wild fantasies designed to prop up the indefensible arguments in favour of an indefensible habit.

[clarie]

Good point Chris T. Something else, of course, that needs to be remembered is that whilst in the case of alchohol, joe might get drunk and happen to punch john who is sitting next to him. MIGHT. But if joe is smoking next to john, this WILL have a detrimental effect on john's health.

[lippy]

Are John & Joe gay!
...wait til Frank finds out!

Oh you've got me all stressed now,going to have a ciggy.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by lippy

Are John & Joe gay!
...wait til Frank finds out!

Frank won't find out because he is in the smokers' room.

[fireman328]

Originally Posted by Chris T

This is the second tortuous story that has now been conjoured up by people who appear desperate to portray alcohol as being as dangerous to third parties as tobacco is.

This is totally ridiculous. For a start, alcohol simply is not dangerous to someone who happens to be sitting next to someone who is drinking it, in anything like the sense that tobacco is. To claim otherwise is absurd, and, frankly, clutching at straws just a little. Secondly, even if alcohol were as dangerous (and it is not), it is plain illogical to suggest this fact as a reason not to do anything about tobacco. If it were the case, the solution would be to ban both. But as it's not, why don't we confine ourselves to a sensible discussion based on facts and not wild fantasies designed to prop up the indefensible arguments in favour of an indefensible habit.

Try telling my G/F that alcohol is not dangerous to her health, she is an A&E sister in a London hospital who has been assaulted a number of times and had her arm broken once.
Strangely enough all the incident reports she has submitted have included "patient smelled strongly of ethanol"

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

If it were the case, the solution would be to ban both. But as it's not, why don't we confine ourselves to a sensible discussion based on facts and not wild fantasies designed to prop up the indefensible arguments in favour of an indefensible habit.

I'm sorry but you talk about a sensible discussion while firstly, disregarding many of the points around alcohol - I mean, come on, you only need to venture into a town centre on a Fri/Sat night to see how socially destructive alcohol is - and secondly, if the points are accepted that either a separate room for smokers is required or banned completely from public places, then why is thier habit 'indefensible'. Many of the habits of non-smokers may not be to my liking but doesn't mean to say that I would feel I have the right to stop them doing it.