smoking and the pub

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

I am not sure getting back into this bit is a good way to proceed but we can if you like...

You're right, smokers aren't asking any non-smokers to be in a smoky environment. They are however, saying if you don't like it, go elsewhere. You're also not taking into account people who are not as educated as others in the dangers of smoking, or the poorer people living in areas where there are very few, if any, non-smoking pubs.

It is a dangerous habit. If you want to indulge in it, that's fine. But millions of people choose to renounce it or to avoid it because of its danger. If smokers can't or don't, that's their problem, and it's not ok to inflict it upon me.

Doesn't the fact that there is a lack of no smoking pubs tell you something? Publicans could have made their pubs non-smoking some time ago. Why didn't they? In an area that has no non-smoking pubs I would have thought that a publican deciding to make his pub non-smoking would be on an absolute winner. All those potential customers who want to enjoy a smoke free atmosphere would flock to it and profits would go through the roof. Maybe the people who frequent pubs actually prefer things the way they are without a ban.

I very rarely go in a pub these days because of my medical condition which makes getting about difficult and alcohol an absolute no-no (stares longingly at the unopened bottle of 25 year old single malt in the cabinet and thinks "if only"). Smoking is bad for my health in many ways but it is also a big benefit to me in association with the L.Dopa prescribed for Parkinson's. Whilst going to the pub is a rare occurence for me I would never go in one again if smoking was not allowed.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Doesn't the fact that there is a lack of no smoking pubs tell you something? Publicans could have made their pubs non-smoking some time ago. Why didn't they?

Centuries of tradition? Fear that if they were the only ones to do it, they would lose out? There are all kinds of reasons why legislation is often required to kick-start something that the majority have long been in favour of.

[fireman328]

Originally Posted by andyl

Employers are going to have to think hard about their responsibilities to staff and potential liabilities if they do not protect them from smoke: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4386122.stm

That does not mean a ban on smoking, there are many occupations which require protective masks or in my previous career breathing equipment which was provided and used as part of the overall health and safety policy.
If a person is employed in a hazardous area then sufficient and adequate equipment must be available to the workers at risk. Are we going to stop paint spraying, fumigation, crop dusting or the production of carcinogens, if so where will it end ?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by basa

Get real .... light up in ANY enclosed environment, aircraft, train, restaraunt, pub, and everyone there gets a bit !!

Very observant. What bit about having premises which the owner wants to allow smoking in and the customers want to be able to smoke in are you failing to understand. Non-smokers don't go in and all those who do get a bit of the smoke but aren't in the least bothered because they don't mind this.

Originally Posted by Chris T

But it's only a smoky environment because the smoker makes it one.

Very observant again. It is only a smoky environment because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind the smoke. Non-smokers can choose not to enter.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Very observant again. It is only a smoky environment because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind the smoke. Non-smokers can choose not to enter.

No, it is not a smoky atmosphere because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind, it is a smoky atmosphere because the smoker puts the smoke into the atmosphere. The smoker, who represents a convincing minority of the overall population.

Non-smokers can do what they have the democratic right to do - applaud and support a ban on the habit of the minority affecting the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of the majority.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Centuries of tradition? Fear that if they were the only ones to do it, they would lose out? There are all kinds of reasons why legislation is often required to kick-start something that the majority have long been in favour of.

Are you actually sure the majority have long been in favour of this ban? For instance all pub customers in Ireland were not in favour:

Even customers do not want an outright ban, the vintners claim, citing a study that found 54% of pub customers would support a separate smoking area over a total ban.

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3543179.stm

Or do you mean the majority of the population?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Centuries of tradition? Fear that if they were the only ones to do it, they would lose out? There are all kinds of reasons why legislation is often required to kick-start something that the majority have long been in favour of.

That would imply that publicans don't have brains and are unable to do a proper risk assesment on their business. If the majority of people have been in favour of smoke free pubs for a long time then there would be far more of them by now. Tradition is something that has no place in making a business plan. Profit potential is the ultimate driving force and it appears that there is a lack of non-smoking pubs because the publicans know that they will lose profit by going down this road.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Are you actually sure the majority have long been in favour of this ban? For instance all pub customers in Ireland were not in favour:
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3543179.stm

Or do you mean the majority of the population?

I don't go into pubs much because of the smoke (and lack of babysitters for the children it's true, but that's another story). It's not surprising if a group of people that has chosen to go into a pub despite the smoke is generally less ambivalent about that smoke.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

No, it is not a smoky atmosphere because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind, it is a smoky atmosphere because the smoker puts the smoke into the atmosphere. The smoker, who represents a convincing minority of the overall population.

Non-smokers can do what they have the democratic right to do - applaud and support a ban on the habit of the minority affecting the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of the majority.

Smokers may represent a convincing minority of the overall population but are they a minority or majority of the pub going population?

Nothing about having a choice between smoking and non-smoking pubs affects the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of a non-smoker.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Profit potential is the ultimate driving force and it appears that there is a lack of non-smoking pubs because the publicans know that they will lose profit by going down this road.

Which is exactly why the ban needs to be put into place. Of course a publican is not going to want to implement a health and safety rule in his bar if he thinks it's going to reduce his profits. That's the nature of business. Doesn't mean he shouldn't do so.I am sure a lot of publicans and restaurant owners could make a much bigger profit if they could just ignore health and safety laws.

However a blanket ban would mean that no bar is at an advantage or disadvantage to any other other bar as regards smoking.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Nothing about having a choice between smoking and non-smoking pubs affects the health, wellbeing and enjoyment of a night out of a non-smoker.

Again, it does, because the non-smoker cannot have free choice of where to go.

We are very much on the same road we were on before and we are in danger of going in infinite circles!

Originally Posted by fireman328

That does not mean a ban on smoking, there are many occupations which require protective masks or in my previous career breathing equipment which was provided and used as part of the overall health and safety policy.
If a person is employed in a hazardous area then sufficient and adequate equipment must be available to the workers at risk. Are we going to stop paint spraying, fumigation, crop dusting or the production of carcinogens, if so where will it end ?

If you are paint spraying then as you say you get given a protective mask. Bar staff are given nowt although I love the idea of bar staff them wearing such masks - apart from anything else should add wonderfully to the tabloid-generated climate of fear over avian flu.
__________________

Actually, just to remind, while this thread makes reference to pubs, the legislation refers to all public enclosed spaces does it not. The fact that the licensed trade believes it should enjoy special exemption is IMO nonsense given this is supposed to be a public health initiative.

[clarie]

Good point andyl, what do all of the anti-ban people think of a ban on smoking in public places other than a drinking establishment?

Originally Posted by andyl

Actually, just to remind, while this thread makes reference to pubs, the legislation refers to all public enclosed spaces does it not. The fact that the licensed trade believes it should enjoy special exemption is IMO nonsense given this is supposed to be a public health initiative.

They have rather tried to corner the debate, haven't they? First, try to get sympathy by making out that they, above anyone and anything else, are the victim, and then quietly support the rather desperate stories that started to appear in the Press over the last couple of days that the smoking ban actually represents a *risk* to public health. Insidious is a good word for it.

[basa]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Very observant. What bit about having premises which the owner wants to allow smoking in and the customers want to be able to smoke in are you failing to understand. Non-smokers don't go in and all those who do get a bit of the smoke but aren't in the least bothered because they don't mind this.

Very observant again. It is only a smoky environment because the smoker chooses to be in it and doesn't mind the smoke. Non-smokers can choose not to enter.

Maybe you should observe the fact this thread is discussing possible new legislation to outlaw smoking in public places. The legislation would effectively prohibit owners from allowing smoking in their property .. presumably because smoking is hazardous to persons.

Smokers and non smokers can then use the premises, except to smoke in !!!!

(There is always a very large space in which smoking is permitted .. it is called THE OPEN AIR.)

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

Again, it does, because the non-smoker cannot have free choice of where to go.

As I said before, why should the non-smoker have a choice and the smoker should have no choice?

I like Chinese food but don't like Indian food. Thankfully there is a choice of both of these and many more types of restaurant. I know that choice of restaurant doesn't have health and safety implications but I hope that you can see my point. All sections of the community should be catered for and if they aren't then it is discrimination.

Nearly everything in life involves having a choice. You don't have a free choice of which Church you go to if you want a Catholic service, for instance. You don't have a free choice of music that you hear on the radio. If the station that you tune to is playing the wrong type of music for you then you retune to one that does. Why should you have a free choice of pub when millions of the population are given no choice?
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

Good point andyl, what do all of the anti-ban people think of a ban on smoking in public places other than a drinking establishment?

To me it doesn't matter if it is a pub or any other place. If the owner of the public space wants to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to.