smoking and the pub

[Kliro]

OB - I didn't think you were allowed to smoke in shops as it would set off the fire alarms? or are they not ionisation systems??

Because thinking about it, I've never seen anyone smoking in a shop...

Also - the fact that wetherspoons isnt the best pub ever doesn't detract from the fact that its hugely sucessful - (smokers want cheap booze too!)

The food is not made from scratch on site, but they have appropriate kitchen facilities and the food is not pre packaged as such - meat cooked properly on site etc.

Food in wetherspoons accounts for 25% of all their sales, as opposed to 5% in 1992, they believe this increase in sales to be directly linked to their addition of non-smoking pubs.

Originally Posted by punky

Let free market capitalism decide.

Free market capitalism has never been, and will never be, a driver of improvements to health and safety. This is a dangerous idea and, thankfully, one that has no serious support in any western developed country (which is why, amongst other things, owners of buildings are compelled to spend money on inconvenient things like fire extinguishers and high-visibility exit signs - items which do nothing for the bottom line of the business).

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

I am not making my own point worthless at all. If I go into a smoking room, the smoke will be much more concentrated than if I go into a pub with smokers in it, as there is a smaller volume of air and a higher concentration of smokers. Does that clear it up?

Actually no, because the regulations for smoke in a public place would still apply, so such a room would have forced air ventilation just like a large pub has, and due to the small confined space, they are likely to be more efficient at clearing the air.

A lot of non-smokers, like myself, go into a smoking pub because we have friends who smoke and enjoy their company.
Now, if they all get corralled into a segregated smoking area which is sealed off, in order to spend time with them, I'd have to also go into that sealed off area, along with anyone else who also wants to spend time with their smoking friends.
Unless you think that non-smokers should be banned from going into the smoking area?

Don't even thinking about saying "but you can wait for them outside" why the hell should I? Don't you know how many promotions and business deals are done in company smoking sheds? Hundreds of non-smokers miss out on promotions simply because they aren't able to spend time with smokers while they smoke due to space constraints.

[SlackDad]

OK one last go it must be getting a bit smoky in here, and I've been accused - falsely I feel - of diversionary tactics but does it not feel a bit back to front of our Government to be putting so much time and effort into a ban that may save 54 bar workers a year but very little on the estimated 39,000 deaths caused by vehicle emissions?

Are non-smokers happy to go into a smoke free pub but not get out of thier cars?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Free market capitalism has never been, and will never be, a driver of improvements to health and safety. This is a dangerous idea and, thankfully, one that has no serious support in any western developed country (which is why, amongst other things, owners of buildings are compelled to spend money on inconvenient things like fire extinguishers and high-visibility exit signs - items which do nothing for the bottom line of the business).

I know, you've already said that... Laws will be there if the pub allows smoking or not. Wether a pub allows smoking or not, things like fire escapes and fire extinguishers will be covered.

People should be able to make an informed descision on what they will and won't do. Some jobs are riskier than others. Some lifestyles are riskier than others. Let people decide. People should be encouraged to avoid/quit altogether smoking, not having it forced upon them by an opressive government.

I like atm having the opportunity to choose wether I sit with smokers or non-smokers. I resent having that basic human right of freedom of choice restricted.

Of course, choice, which is what free market capitalism allows for doesn't go down with with your average socialist (i.e. oppressive and authoritiarian) government.

Don't get into free market definitions of choice or this thread will never end

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

OK one last go it must be getting a bit smoky in here, and I've been accused - falsely I feel - of diversionary tactics but does it not feel a bit back to front of our Government to be putting so much time and effort into a ban that may save 54 bar workers a year but very little on the estimated 39,000 deaths caused by vehicle emissions?

Are non-smokers happy to go into a smoke free pub but not get out of thier cars?

Ssshh!!! It doesn't suit their agenda to get out of the car and walk. They like their cars! Smokers are a MUCH easier target.

Originally Posted by Kliro

OB - I didn't think you were allowed to smoke in shops as it would set off the fire alarms? or are they not ionisation systems??

Because thinking about it, I've never seen anyone smoking in a shop...

Can't smoke in malls. Shock! Horror!

Also - the fact that wetherspoons isnt the best pub ever doesn't detract from the fact that its hugely sucessful - (smokers want cheap booze too!)

The food is not made from scratch on site, but they have appropriate kitchen facilities and the food is not pre packaged as such - meat cooked properly on site etc.

Food in wetherspoons accounts for 25% of all their sales, as opposed to 5% in 1992, they believe this increase in sales to be directly linked to their addition of non-smoking pubs.

Wetherspoons are still crap though That is, of course, another debate.

[lippy]

Originally Posted by clarie

I am not making my own point worthless at all. If I go into a smoking room, the smoke will be much more concentrated than if I go into a pub with smokers in it, as there is a smaller volume of air and a higher concentration of smokers. Does that clear it up?

You can't see how you're contradicting yourself?
....BEGGERS BELIEF!

Originally Posted by orangebird

Ssshh!!! It doesn't suit their agenda to get out of the car and walk. They like their cars! Smokers are a MUCH easier target.

Cars are also functional things (not that I'm advocating in any way ignoring the dangers of air pollution)

Originally Posted by punky

I know, you've already said that... Laws will be there if the pub allows smoking or not. Wether a pub allows smoking or not, things like fire escapes and fire extinguishers will be covered.

People should be able to make an informed descision on what they will and won't do. Some jobs are riskier than others. Some lifestyles are riskier than others. Let people decide. People should be encouraged to avoid/quit altogether smoking, not having it forced upon them by an opressive government.

I like atm having the opportunity to choose wether I sit with smokers or non-smokers. I resent having that basic human right of freedom of choice restricted.

Of course, choice, which is what free market capitalism allows for doesn't go down with with your average socialist (i.e. oppressive and authoritiarian) government.

I know I said it before, but then you made the point about free markets before. This whole thread is orbiting round and round the same core issues.

Something else I've said before is to draw the parallel with road traffic law. Do you resent the curtailment of your right to choose to drive at 90mph through a built-up area while steaming drunk, or do you agree that it is acceptable to curtail freedom of choice when there are larger health and safety issues at stake?

Originally Posted by orangebird

Smokers are in the minority nationally, yes. But they are a majority in my local. I'm not expecting every pub to accomodate me as a smoker. But I don't think it's unreasonable for the landlord to be allowed to choose who they accomodate for.

Hmmm, we had the debate about protecting staff before didn't we?! Scratchs head, pulls toe nails out, seks distraction - any distraction - from this interminable thread.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by andyl

Cars are also functional things (not that I'm advocating in any way ignoring the dangers of air pollution)

So are cigarettes for many people esp. as I have already argued many suffering from mental health problems.

But the point I was making wa smore concerned with Government priority.

[Pia]

Originally Posted by orangebird

Ssshh!!! It doesn't suit their agenda to get out of the car and walk. They like their cars! Smokers are a MUCH easier target.

This is what i mean....... stereotyping, judging, categorizing......

Why? Some smokers drive, some smokers don't. Same goes for non smokers.

'They' may like their cars. BUT if you want to get all stereotypical- non smokers who are fit may actually prefer to walk- to keep fit.
Same way as some smokers might not drive because they can't afford to as they buy 20 fags every day.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by andyl

Cars are also functional things (not that I'm advocating in any way ignoring the dangers of air pollution)

This is the point I'm making. Cars are useful to some of the non-smokers on here, it's OK for them to keep those on the road. BUt because they don't smoke, they'll support a blanket ban.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pia

This is what i mean....... stereotyping, judging, categorizing......

Why? Some smokers drive, some smokers don't. Same goes for non smokers.

'They' may like their cars. BUT if you want to get all stereotypical- non smokers who are fit may actually prefer to walk- to keep fit.
Same way as some smokers might not drive because they can't afford to as they buy 20 fags every day.

I can do both.