smoking and the pub

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The power lies with the establishment owner.

Actually the power lies ultimately with the government and quite right too. So far as I have seen in this thread, many landlords are more worried about their profits than the health of their patrons (and I imagine this is a perfectly natural concern), however, our health is more important than the landlord's bank balance, which is where the government legislation steps in.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

Just trying to point out my view is that its up to an individual to smoke, same should apply to the landlord and what he/she wants in their establishment. A complete ban is a direct hit on freedom of choice. Also, can anybody explain why there is H&S regulations about smoking that we all have to adhere to but smoking is still legal? Seems a contradiction to me.

Originally Posted by orangebird

I don't think it's nearly as clever as you do. This is what I said in response to Neon's post:

Originally Posted by Chris T

How is it a contradiction? We have reams and reams of laws that tell you how to drive your car, without making driving illegal.

Speed limits impinge on my personal freedom to get where I want to be as fast as I choose, but I accept them because I recognise the overall health and safety issues are *more important* than my personal freedom.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I don't think it's nearly as clever as you do. <snip>

So what? I wasn't aware that I should form the same opinion of peoples post as you do. Is there a new site t&c I don't know about?

I still think

Originally Posted by Xaccers

However, if the AUP of the establishment was that patrons could urinate in the middle of the lounge, you'd have no right to complain if someone does it.

Actually, you would, because health and safety law would overrule the landlord's toleration of such a thing - in much the same way as health and safety laws are about to over-rule landlords who allow smoking.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

But your reasoning is not self evident, as you present it to be. It works only for the one who can speak from a position of power. Currently, smokers have the power. They, however, are a minority, and the democratic majority are about to take that power from them. The situation will then appear thus:

If going into a smoke-free establishment is so unreasonable, don't do it.
If the need to smoke in a pub is greater than your own health concerns, then frankly, what are you complaining about?
If a pub's smoke-free status is too much for you, don't go in there. Simple as that. (You can smoke at home).
Either you accept the wishes of the majority and go in, without your fags, or if you can't go without your fags, you don't.

But the problem with this, Chris, is that non-smokers currently have a choice as to whether to visit a pub where smoking is allowed or a pub where smoking is not allowed/confined to a small area. After this ban is imposed, and the balance of power is shifted, as you put it, then the smokers won't have the option of going from a pub where smoking is not allowed to a pub where smoking is allowed, as this pub (er... that serves food too, I hasten to add) will not be permitted by law. Currently non-smokers have a choice - soon, smokers will not have that choice.

Originally Posted by orangebird

So what?

Because you're quoting and applauding something someone posted earlier today, which more than one other person has since attempted to refute. If you want to take the discussion forward instead of simply shouting from the grandstand, why not tackle those objections, or at least explain why they're not relevant?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

I am not as concerned about your right to choose as I am about your, mine and everyone else's right to enjoy good health.

Which you can enjoy fully by excising your right to not go into establishments where smoking is allowed.
Why should I not be allowed to chose to sit down with smoking friends while we eat and they smoke?
They are allowed to choose to smoke, so why am I denied the choice to passive smoke?
If somewhere is smokey and you don't want to go in there because of it, simply don't go in there, no one is forcing you to put your health at risk.
Do you also believe that tobacco products should be banned?
If so, how about alcohol?

Originally Posted by Cris T

But that is a self-selecting group, so it doesn't really prove anything.

When 75% of people don't smoke, but only 40-50% of the people at the pub are non-smokers, you have to wonder why the non-smokers are staying away.

Yes it does prove something.
People are exercising their right to choose.
People who stay away are staying away because they don't want to go there, leaving the pub free for everyone who does want to go there.
If the landlord wants to attract non-smokers, then fine, let him impliment a non-smoking policy, and people will still be able to excise their right to choose whether to go there or to go elsewhere which allows smoking.

Originally Posted by Salu

If you were to wear a goldfish bowl on your head and then smoke then I would have no problem sitting next to you while you enjoyed your right to smoke. The problem arises when your right interferes with mine. We have done this to death in the thread previously btw...

I no longer smoke by the way.

No one is forcing you to go to a public house where smoking is permitted. So don't go! Same for smokers.

Why have a complete ban? What's wrong with individual choice with regards to what publicans want? Do we not live in a democracy, with so called freedom of choice?

If smokers in pubs are in such a small minority, why is it then that most publicans don't want an enforced ban?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Because you're quoting and applauding something someone posted earlier today, which more than one other person has since attempted to refute. If you want to take the discussion forward instead of simply shouting from the grandstand, why not tackle those objections, or at least explain why they're not relevant?

So what? I agree with his post, and I applaude it. Why the **** do I have to justify that action? Who called the posting police? I really don't care whether you liked his post as much as I did or not.

[lippy]

Sealed room for smokers!

We've got them now,they're called pubs which allow smoking.

Anyway, how long would it be before non-smokers wanted to come in to our sealed room?

Originally Posted by Gareth

But the problem with this, Chris, is that non-smokers currently have a choice as to whether to visit a pub where smoking is allowed or a pub where smoking is not allowed/confined to a small area. After this ban is imposed, and the balance of power is shifted, as you put it, then the smokers won't have the option of going from a pub where smoking is not allowed to a pub where smoking is allowed, as this pub (er... that serves food too, I hasten to add) will not be permitted by law. Currently non-smokers have a choice - soon, smokers will not have that choice.

My argument throughout has been that the 'choice' afforded to non-smokers is an illusion. For a start, there are virtually no non-smoking pubs. And to follow, in those pubs which have 'separate' areas, I have never once been in one where the non-smoking section is entirely smoke free, *except* in very large establishments, where it is possible to sit a long, long way from the smoke.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

If smokers in pubs are in such a small minority, why is it then that most publicans don't want an enforced ban?

Smokers in pubs are not currently in a small minority, but they are in the overall population. If smoking were banned in pubs, I expect many non-smokers would come out of the woodwork and frequent pubs more often, having previously avoided them for health reasons and because they didn't like coming home stinking of smoke.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

I no longer smoke by the way.

No one is forcing you to go to a public house where smoking is permitted. So don't go! Same for smokers.

Why have a complete ban? What's wrong with individual choice with regards to what publicans want? Do we not live in a democracy, with so called freedom of choice?

If smokers in pubs are in such a small minority, why is it then that most publicans don't want an enforced ban?

Another fine point Neonknight

[clarie]

Originally Posted by lippy

Sealed room for smokers!

We've got them now,they're called pubs which allow smoking.

Anyway, how long would it be before non-smokers wanted to come in to our sealed room?

Why on earth would a non-smoker want to go into a sealed smoking room?