smoking and the pub

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by clarie

To conclude smoking should be banned altogether!

so i'm not allowed to smoke in my house? pfft.

[carlingman]

Originally Posted by Chris W

so i'm not allowed to smoke in my house? pfft.

Yep you can unless of course you own a public house then in 2006/2007 then the nanny state has won.

Although you could build a room for smokers and let the non smokers stand outside and only enter with masks when they need a refill.

The day when someone dictates I cannot smoke in my own house and makes that a law is the day I go back to jail.

Originally Posted by clarie

To conclude smoking should be banned altogether!

Nice thought - never happen though. Look what happend in America with Prohibition.......

[clarie]

Of course it should be banned - I find it bizarre that smoking, of all of the drugs, is legal. It might give the remaining smokers the kick up the *** they need to quit.

Although yes of course it would cause a lot of problems, as prohibition did in America.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by clarie

To conclude smoking should be banned altogether!

Forgive her incoherant ramblings - she's been out drinking

[Gareth]

Blimey, this thread is almost as long as the 'NTL 10Mb' thread ...and the person who started the whole thing has been banned since it was created, so can't see what's being said!

My views are that I am fully aware that inhaling cigarette smoke is dangerous to one's health, whether the smoke is inhaled passively or otherwise (what's the opposite to passive smoking? Aggressive smoking..?!?). I have seen the statistics and have read reports linking passive smoking to fatal diseases. However, I am struggling to see why such a ban was deemed necessary. Like Xaccers said earlier on, I think this proposed ban would be a bad thing because it is an infringement on civil liberties. I really, really don't like being told what I can and can not do. I like having the freedom of choice, as a sane adult, to do what I like where I like.

Saying that, I admit I like the idea of living in a civilised society, and I live by the laws that are imposed. So, if the Government were really serious about this, then I'd like to see it banned in private as well as public places, and I'd like to see people arrested for possessing cigarettes. If such a law were enforced then I would accept that smoking in public places be outlawed. This, alas, isn't realistic so smoking will remain legal.

Despite smoking remaining legal, and without any laws currently in place governing such a thing, smoking is not allowed in my local cinema, nor my local library, nor the local sports centre, nor even in my local hospital. Despite there being no law forbidding this (I understand the Public Places Charter is only voluntary), I've yet to see anyone light-up in any of these places - there's an acceptance that smoking in these places is not allowed, and this rule is always stuck to. There is no law that prevents someone from running a cinema where smoking is permitted if they wanted to do so, but I don't honestly think we'll see such a thing where I live.

Focusing on pubs, which is what this thread is all about after all... Currently, I have a choice about where to go and what to do, so I am happy. When my wife and I take our son to eat at one of our local pubs, we can go to the Manor Farm, which has a very large non-smoking area (the main bar) plus a very large non-smoking restaurant, and all the smokers are confined to a smaller room at the back of the pub where they don't cause any harm to anoyone but themselves (I've noticed that the smokers even take their empties back to the bar, so the bar staff aren't inconvenienced/harmed by their smoke!). Alternatively, we can go to the Abbey Meads pub where smoking is again only allowed in a small section of the pub - it's not quite as well managed as the Manor Farm, so we tend to go there less often unless we want to eat outside. Finally, there's the Toby Carvery... fully non-smoking wherever you sit (although you can probably smoke outside).

To put this in perspective, that's 3 pubs that serve food within a ½-mile radius of our house, where we confidently feel that the health of our son is not being compromised by passive smoking. There are other pubs we could go to if we wanted to, but we always decide not to, because of the smokey environment. We have a choice, and we exercise that choice when we go to a particular pub instead of another pub. Similarly, smokers currently have a choice. They can go to the Manor Farm pub - and they do - provided they don't mind being segregated - and apparently they don't mind it. Otherwise, they can go to the Abbey Meads pub and again can drink and smoke at the same time (ok, physically that's not possible, but you get my meaning). Otherwise, they can go to the pub within the Toby Carvery and can sit outside in the garden whenever they want a cigarette. Currently, the smokers exercise their choice when they decide where they want to smoke.

Now, if this bill became law, it is possible that some of the pubs my family and I currently frequent will cease serving food, so we will no longer have such a varied choice over where to eat Alternatively, they will prevent people from smoking where they are currently allowed to do so, and that results in the smokers having less choice, even though they are not affecting me nor my family as much as some people are suggesting.

By the way, there's a good article in Tuesday's Guardian comparing the dangers of passive smoking to air pollution, and highlighting the fact that air pollution kills many, many times more people per year than passive smoking, yet is still being overlooked.

Originally Posted by Gareth

By the way, there's a good article in Tuesday's Guardian comparing the dangers of passive smoking to air pollution, and highlighting the fact that air pollution kills many, many times more people per year than passive smoking, yet is still being overlooked.

One of the reasons why might be that people don't want to give up their car's and are probably the same people pontificating to smokers about passive smoking? Time for a new thread perhaps?

As the article said "Passive Driving" anyone ?

Originally Posted by Gareth

<huge snip>
By the way, there's a good article in Tuesday's Guardian comparing the dangers of passive smoking to air pollution, and highlighting the fact that air pollution kills many, many times more people per year than passive smoking, yet is still being overlooked.

Gareth, that was an interesting summary of what you believe (essentially, personal choice I think), but you really didn't address any of the issues that have been raised as objections to smoke in public. If you think that personal choice is to be rated more highly than the health issue, could you explain why? This is something I don't think anyone on the pro-smoking side has adequately answered in this thread.

As for the comparison between smoking and cars ... we have said over and over in this thread, just because something other than smoking can be shown to be a problem, it does not follow that nothing should be done about smoking. The smokescreen ()the pro-smoking lobby has tried to put up, about alcohol, cars, etc etc etc, is entertaining but conveniently fails to address the persuasive arguments in favour of a ban on smoking.

But if we are to compare them, are you suggesting that an outright ban on smoking would affect the economy in a similarly drastic way as a ban on driving?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Kliro

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

Wetherspoons are the most sucessful because they are the cheapest - they buy just about out of date stuff for next to nothing, knock it out to their patrons and a ridiculously low price, so people go there and get bladdered before they go to a real Pub. Their menus are laminated also, which in my 12 year experience of pubs and restaurants, means the food is all prepacked and microwaved, therefore they do not have to pay the wages of a fully trained chef, just some college student who can use a pair of scissors and a 'Hinari Lifestyle'. Hence the bargain food prices too. To summise, Wetherspoons are sh1te, and if you think they're a real pub, then you seriously need to get out more.

Originally Posted by orangebird

To summise, Wetherspoons are sh1te, and if you think they're a real pub, then you seriously need to get out more.

I don't get out much, and it's usually to Wetherspoons.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I don't get out much, and it's usually to Wetherspoons.

Oh deary deary me... If you're that worried about your childrens health, I hope you don't feed them from the pub menu. Hardly 'fresh cooked'....

Originally Posted by orangebird

Oh deary deary me... If you're that worried about your childrens health, I hope you don't feed them from the pub menu. Hardly 'fresh cooked'....

Well rather than feel sorry for smokers, spare a thought for us family folk whose options are often horribly limited. I mean, Brewers Fayre. Now if anything should be banned......

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by andyl

Well rather than feel sorry for smokers, spare a thought for us family folk whose options are often horribly limited. I mean, Brewers Fayre. Now if anything should be banned......

Yep, same old laminated/microwave crap.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

As for the comparison between smoking and cars ... we have said over and over in this thread, just because something other than smoking can be shown to be a problem, it does not follow that nothing should be done about smoking. The smokescreen ()the pro-smoking lobby has tried to put up, about alcohol, cars, etc etc etc, is entertaining but conveniently fails to address the persuasive arguments in favour of a ban on smoking.

I agree with you on this point.

But if we are to compare them, are you suggesting that an outright ban on smoking would affect the economy in a similarly drastic way as a ban on driving?

The article I don't think was suggesting an outright ban on cars but questioning why the government is failing to meet standards set down by the EU. I think the camparison is at least worth making in terms of priorities, and looking at the figures you'd think the Government may have decided to priotise car use/emissions etc.

Originally Posted by orangebird

Yep, same old laminated/microwave crap.

Indeed. But sometimes that's the only choice open to families, a choice which will become even more limited when pubs jack in food because of this useless fudge.