smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Hang on I've stated on more than one occasion that I am not in contention with the research on the effects of smoking and secondary smoke

In which case I don't understand your objection. We agree that smoking and secondary smoke are both injurious to health. There is a body of opinion that says it is therefore common sense to reduce the exposure of the general population to such smoke by banning it in all public places (with certain exceptions in England). You apparently are objecting that there is no direct evidence that this solution will address the problem adequately enough to justify the upheaval it will cause. The contrary view is that the problem is so big, any improvement is worth having, and that the statistics do indeed demonstrate that is is a big problem.

Russ very succinctly put it earlier. There is no direct evidence that a very hard boot in the nuts would cause you, specifically, great pain (I'm assuming that no-one has ever afflicted you in such a way). Does that mean you're happy for the law of common assault not to apply to your goolies until such time as you're satisfied it should? Or does common sense tell you that if it hurts, it hurts, and it's logical to play safe and enjoy legal protection?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

And Pierre, smoky pubs shouldn't be inflicted on children.

I'm all for "family" pubs. If the kids are out for a family meal then you're quite correct.

However, if the kids have been dragged down to the local drinking den with their dead beat parents, then thats a different story.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm all for "family" pubs. If the kids are out for a family meal then your quite correct.

However, if the kids have been dragged down to the local drinking den with their dead beat parents, then thats a different story.

Ah so posh pubs are OK, not-posh ones not?!

Besides this isn't just about the kiddlewinks, its also about the staff and other punters.


Someone please put a (strictly metaphorical) gun to this thread's head.

Originally Posted by Pierre

And the new regulations state that this will be the case, so what's your problem?

That's a nice attempt to reduce my objections to the narrow issue of smoke drift in supposedly 'segregated' premises, but as you are fully aware, my support for a *complete* smoking ban is not based on this one narrow issue. I've explained my various reasons over and over again in this thread, so forgive me if I don't do so again now, I am switching off my PC to go home.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

They have every right to be eating dinner with their parents in any of the tens of thousands of pubs that also function as a restaurant. Many of these have segregated seating, I accept, but I think the concept of air conditioning that keeps smoke out of the non-smoking areas is one of the greatest mis-selling scandals of our age. I have yet to go to such an establishment where the non-smoking tables anywhere near the smoking ones are free of smoke.

Surely their parents should not be taking them to smokey enviroments in the first place?
Is anyone holding a gun to non-smokers' heads saying "you must come into smoking establishments or else" because as a non-smoker (never ever have I been tempted to smoke) I've never felt that I could not say no and choose somewhere else to go.
Even when out with my gf who is a smoker, if it's too smokey for me, I will tell her and she understands (she's great like that).
We'd never take kids into a restaurant which has smokey non-smoking areas, to me only a bad parent would deliberately expose their children to such an environment.

I feel it is hypocritical of the goverment to remove the choice of people to partake in second hand smoking, but let people retain the choice to partake in the more dangerous first hand smoking.

Why as a non-smoker should I not be allowed to sit at a table with smokers and enjoy a meal with them "because it may damage my health" while I take up smoking which definitely would damage my health?

It should be up to the landlord/owner to decide if they're going to go non-smoking totally or not.
Sure, increase the ventilation regulations etc of establishments to reduce the danger to people, but don't let us sink further into a nanny state.

Originally Posted by Pierre

And the new regulations state that this will be the case, so what's your problem?

In Greater Manchester 53% of licensees have said they will stop serving food as a result of this useless fudge. A total ban would have seen food kept - yummy! - and smoking removed. A far better idea surely?!

Ok, I'm off. Only so many times you can go around a roundabout befored the view gets stale!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

Ah so posh pubs are OK, not-posh ones not?!

Besides this isn't just about the kiddlewinks, its also about the staff and other punters.


Someone please put a (strictly metaphorical) gun to this thread's head.

Nothing to do with Posh or no Posh.

I do not think that your typical local drinking den is suitable environment for kids full stop.

Under the new regulations the "family" type pub will be smoke free. The typical drinking den that doesn't serve food will probably not be.

However, if you think the red lion on the corner of the main street is a good place for kids to be whilst their parents drink their giros and they sit in their with their packet of crisps and glass of cook a good thing, then all power to you.

I suppose that's the way I grew up and it didn't do me any harm. I just though we'd moved on a bit since then.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

In Greater Manchester 53% of licensees have said they will stop serving food as a result of this useless fudge. A total ban would have seen food kept - yummy! - and smoking removed. A far better idea surely?!

Ok, I'm off. Only so many times you can go around a roundabout befored the view gets stale!

Well, if you think about it, in most pubs, their wet sales (booze) far outweigh their dry sales (food)
Alot of the drink sales are from people who smoke and drink.
Cut out smoking, and you cut out a huge amount of the drink sales.

For example, say a pub takes in £6000 a night from drink, but only £500 from food.
They cut out smoking, their drink sales drop by £2000, their food sales go up by £200.
They're now losing money.
Or they could cut out the food and keep the drinkers, so they're only £500 down instead of £1800.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

In which case I don't understand your objection. We agree that smoking and secondary smoke are both injurious to health. There is a body of opinion that says it is therefore common sense to reduce the exposure of the general population to such smoke by banning it in all public places (with certain exceptions in England). You apparently are objecting that there is no direct evidence that this solution will address the problem adequately enough to justify the upheaval it will cause. The contrary view is that the problem is so big, any improvement is worth having, and that the statistics do indeed demonstrate that is is a big problem.

Finally somebody has at least correctly acknowledged my argument

Russ very succinctly put it earlier. There is no direct evidence that a very hard boot in the nuts would cause you, specifically, great pain (I'm assuming that no-one has ever afflicted you in such a way). Does that mean you're happy for the law of common assault not to apply to your goolies until such time as you're satisfied it should? Or does common sense tell you that if it hurts, it hurts, and it's logical to play safe and enjoy legal protection?

Although I see the point the analogy isn't that good. There is direct evidence as most of us have either been hit in some capacity in this area or seen it happen to somebody else. There is of course the survival instinct that makes us protect this area when the situation arises. But i'm starting to feel a little pedantic.

Ok Ok I will admit that I have at times played the devil's advocate. I am not that stupid to know that smoking and indeed passive smoking can cause serious illness, but alas, stupid enough to smoke.
I do hope that soon I will be able to give up and maybe this ban will in some way help.
However what I have been trying to do is question the effectiveness of this ban in tackling the problems associated with passive smoking and especially the effects on children. (And at times look at other areas that will be affected such as social isolation). I am still not so sure what the actual effects of this ban will be in tackling this problem. What I suggested in a previous post was that we should focus on the overall culture of smoking so that people esp. children do not feel the need to take up the habit in the first place. Again, I don't know how effective this ban will be in this area.
If I am still smoking when the ban takes effect I will of course not inflict my smoke on others, which I agree is rude and inconsiderate. I still contend that as a society we are becoming more fearful and obsessed with risk and I don't know how healthy this is. But thanks for the debate, esp. Chris T, Clarie and Russ D

[fireman328]

Originally Posted by andyl

OK, I'm irritating myself now, so last hurrah: http://www.ehso.com/SmokingRespHealth.htm

And Pierre, smoky pubs shouldn't be inflicted on children.

Pubs should not be inflicted on children.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, if you think about it, in most pubs, their wet sales (booze) far outweigh their dry sales (food)
Alot of the drink sales are from people who smoke and drink.
Cut out smoking, and you cut out a huge amount of the drink sales.

For example, say a pub takes in £6000 a night from drink, but only £500 from food.
They cut out smoking, their drink sales drop by £2000, their food sales go up by £200.
They're now losing money.
Or they could cut out the food and keep the drinkers, so they're only £500 down instead of £1800.

Actually most of the profit is in food sales where the mark up is high and publicans are not beholden to the brewery for sales. The mark up on wet sales is very small.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Angua

Actually most of the profit is in food sales where the mark up is high and publicans are not beholden to the brewery for sales. The mark up on wet sales is very small.

In restaurants which also have a bar perhaps, but from personal experience of pubs which also serve food (in a restaurant type manner) their wet sales have far out matched their dry sales.

[Kliro]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, if you think about it, in most pubs, their wet sales (booze) far outweigh their dry sales (food)
Alot of the drink sales are from people who smoke and drink.
Cut out smoking, and you cut out a huge amount of the drink sales.

For example, say a pub takes in £6000 a night from drink, but only £500 from food.
They cut out smoking, their drink sales drop by £2000, their food sales go up by £200.
They're now losing money.
Or they could cut out the food and keep the drinkers, so they're only £500 down instead of £1800.

heh, food attracts a huge amount of custom, especially at lunch and dinner times, also people who eat food also drink, removing food is going to remove a fair bit more money than that. If you want food, you are going to go to a pub which serves food, on the other hand if there were a complete ban on smoking, people who wanted to smoke would still go to the pub, but smoke outside.
This does of course change from pub to pub, one which serves only chips and sandwitches will likely opt to remove their food, whilst pubs like wetherspoons would be better keeping it.

Also as a sidenote - many people here have been saying that pubs will not be able to manage to stay open if they ban smoking.

What about wetherspoons then? They are banning smoking voluntarily, and afaik are the most sucessful pub chain in britain.

I know I'm out of this now but to be fair Wetherspoons pubs are crap!!

[clarie]

To conclude smoking should be banned altogether!