Smoking in public places to be banned

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

And, has already been pointed out, all that means is that the smoke drifts over from the smoker's area.

Oh, and IME usually the "no smoking" area is a small section stuck in a corner or practically separated off from the main area of the pub.

But if you actually look at the number of people smoking in the main part of the pub, it's only a fairly small proportion. So why not re-arrange things so the "drug addicts" can go into a small room, get their fix, then come out and join the rest of us when they've finished instead of the whole pub being polluted by their smoke?



Except the analogy fails when you look at the fact that many pubs only allow children in the "family garden" or similar area and, of those that permit them in the main part of the pub, they tend to request that you keep your children quiet and well behaved.

If the children start to behave in a way that affects other pub users, the landlord may well ask the parents to leave.

Now let's put that back in the context of smoking. The smokers can do it, provided it's in the garden or similar set-aside area and if they do it in the main part of the pub it's going to affect other pub users, so it is *THEY* who should leave if they don't like it!!



Why is it a poor comparison? If you drink alcohol it doesn't affect *me*! There's no such thing as "passive drinking"!



With freedoms come *responsibilities*. As I've said before, your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose. Someone's freedom to smoke should end when *I* am forced to breathe their smoke or have it stink up my clothes.

That is the best post I have ever seen you write. Well put

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

And, has already been pointed out, all that means is that the smoke drifts over from the smoker's area.

Oh, and IME usually the "no smoking" area is a small section stuck in a corner or practically separated off from the main area of the pub.

But if you actually look at the number of people smoking in the main part of the pub, it's only a fairly small proportion. So why not re-arrange things so the "drug addicts" can go into a small room, get their fix, then come out and join the rest of us when they've finished instead of the whole pub being polluted by their smoke?

Why not have the pub equally split???

Why make it law? why not let, as I suggested earlier, let the management of the establishment decide who they wouldlike to cater for?

All I am asking for is freedom of choice - do you not believe in that?

Except the analogy fails when you look at the fact that many pubs only allow children in the "family garden" or similar area and, of those that permit them in the main part of the pub, they tend to request that you keep your children quiet and well behaved.

If the children start to behave in a way that affects other pub users, the landlord may well ask the parents to leave.

Now let's put that back in the context of smoking. The smokers can do it, provided it's in the garden or similar set-aside area and if they do it in the main part of the pub it's going to affect other pub users, so it is *THEY* who should leave if they don't like it!!

Thats fine, that is what I was alluding to. If I went to a "none kids" pub and kids were running riot I would expect them to leave. If I was in anon-smoking pub and people were smoking again I would expect them to be booted out.

Why is it a poor comparison? If you drink alcohol it doesn't affect *me*! There's no such thing as "passive drinking"!

There is such thing as passive abuse, passive drunken assault, passive knocked down and killed, passive home wrecking, passive wife beating.

With freedoms come *responsibilities*. As I've said before, your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose. Someone's freedom to smoke should end when *I* am forced to breathe their smoke or have it stink up my clothes.

I agree that you should not be "forced" to breathe other peoples smoke. "properly" segregated (air tight if necessary) areas should be allocated for smokers and non-smokers.

I just believe a blanket ban is necessary or fair. Smokers should be allowed to go out and smoke and enjoy themselves and so should non-smokers.

Surely its possible for both sides to do this??

Originally Posted by Pierre

Why not have the pub equally split???

How many people are actually smoking in a pub at any one time? Maybe 20%? So why should a minority get a majority or even an equal share?

Why make it law? why not let, as I suggested earlier, let the management of the establishment decide who they wouldlike to cater for?

From a purely economic point of view, if *only* you ban it from your establishment, you will probably lose custom to the place that doesn't, so you're less likely to ban it because of that, Catch 22.

All I am asking for is freedom of choice - do you not believe in that?

You know damn well that I do believe in freedom of choice. But I am *NOT* free to enjoy a pub where some people are smoking and I am not protected from their smoke.

Thats fine, that is what I was alluding to. If I went to a "none kids" pub and kids were running riot I would expect them to leave. If I was in anon-smoking pub and people were smoking again I would expect them to be booted out.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

I said "Now let's put that back in the context of smoking. The smokers can do it, provided it's in the garden or similar set-aside area and if they do it in the main part of the pub it's going to affect other pub users, so it is *THEY* who should leave if they don't like it!!"

I'm talking about a pub where smoking or children *are* allowed, but in a designated, set aside area. Provided that doesn't affect others, I have no problems with it.

There is such thing as passive abuse, passive drunken assault, passive knocked down and killed, passive home wrecking, passive wife beating.

You're getting desperate now. None of these equate to my getting drunk because of what you're drinking, neither do they equate to my inhaling someone else's smoke.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Graham

How many people are actually smoking in a pub at any one time? Maybe 20%? So why should a minority get a majority or even an equal share?

There may only be 20% smoking at any one time but the chances are that the ones that are smoking are in the company of others who are not and that the total number of customers who are in groups which include a smoker is a majority of the customers present. Would you expect a group of half a dozen customers to all nip outside if one of them wanted a fag?

Originally Posted by Graham

From a purely economic point of view, if *only* you ban it from your establishment, you will probably lose custom to the place that doesn't, so you're less likely to ban it because of that, Catch 22.

I would imagine that pub landlords, being businessmen trying to maximise their profits, have weighed up the consequences of being a non-smoking pub, a zoned smoking pub or a fully smoking pub. The answer being that the pub becomes what its customers want it to be. If the majority of people prefer a non smoking pub and only frequent such pubs then you would find that most pubs will become non smoking. The fact that they don't must tell you something.

Originally Posted by Graham

You know damn well that I do believe in freedom of choice. But I am *NOT* free to enjoy a pub where some people are smoking and I am not protected from their smoke.

But you are free to enjoy pubs that do not allow smoking whereas smokers are not free to enjoy them. Smokers can use these non smoking pubs but may not enjoy the experience as much as they would in a smoking pub.

Be honest, how much of your life is spent in pubs and how much of that time is spoiled by smokers being present. Many non smokers complain about smoking when they see a cigarette even though they cannot smell it or there is none of the smoke entering their lungs. I have had people ask me to refrain from smoking because the smoke is affecting them when all I have had is an unlit cigarette in my hand with no intention of lighting it.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

There may only be 20% smoking at any one time but the chances are that the ones that are smoking are in the company of others who are not and that the total number of customers who are in groups which include a smoker is a majority of the customers present. Would you expect a group of half a dozen customers to all nip outside if one of them wanted a fag?

No, I'd expect the one who is engaged in the smelly, anti-social, unhealthy habit to step outside until they'd got their fix and then come back again after. Why should I have to put up with it?

I would imagine that pub landlords, being businessmen trying to maximise their profits, have weighed up the consequences of being a non-smoking pub, a zoned smoking pub or a fully smoking pub. The answer being that the pub becomes what its customers want it to be. If the majority of people prefer a non smoking pub and only frequent such pubs then you would find that most pubs will become non smoking. The fact that they don't must tell you something.

Yes, it tells me that you haven't thought the model through. If you were going out with five friends and the other four didn't smoke so wanted to go to a non-smoking pub or to sit in a non-smoking area but you did want to smoke, would you expect the four to submit to your wishes? What if they told you "we're going to a non-smoking pub, deal with it"?

But if, as Ireland has done, smoking was banned, you wouldn't *have* to be forced into that position. You could still go, you would just have to step outside when you needed your fags.

The landlord wouldn't have to risk losing business to cater for a minority who exercise undue power over the majority and the pub *will* be what the *majority* would most likely prefer it to be.

But you are free to enjoy pubs that do not allow smoking whereas smokers are not free to enjoy them. Smokers can use these non smoking pubs but may not enjoy the experience as much as they would in a smoking pub.

Rubbish. As I've already pointed out, they can step outside and smoke. It simply means that the rest of us don't have to breathe it too.

Be honest, how much of your life is spent in pubs and how much of that time is spoiled by smokers being present.

That's irrelevant. I don't want to have to be put into a position where I *need* to complain about smokers. I don't want to come back with my clothes and hair stinking of smoke, nor, if I'm coming back with a non-smoking girlfriend do I want *her* to stink of smoke either. *That* is what spoils it.

Many non smokers complain about smoking when they see a cigarette even though they cannot smell it or there is none of the smoke entering their lungs. I have had people ask me to refrain from smoking because the smoke is affecting them when all I have had is an unlit cigarette in my hand with no intention of lighting it.

And how are *they* going to know that you've got "no intention of lighting it"? If I see someone with an unlit fag in their hand it's a reasonable conclusion that they're going to do something with it!

[ian@huth]

Graham, you are looking at this issue with the presumption that all people who do not smoke object to being in places where people do smoke. You are manipulating the argument on this false premise. I have been out with friends, none of which smoke, and gone to a non smoking area only to have one of them say that we would be better going to the smoking area so that I could have a fag when I wanted one. Asking the question of several non smoking friends today they have all said the same thing. When they are out having a good time at the pub they are not bothered about the smokers lighting up. The consensus was that they didn't really notice whether anyone was smoking or not.

I can just picture your idea of a good night out in the pub, sitting there moaning about smokers whilst the guy next to you is hoping that you would find another seat as he can't stand the smell of your aftershave.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, I'd expect the one who is engaged in the smelly, anti-social, unhealthy habit to step outside until they'd got their fix and then come back again after. Why should I have to put up with it?

Look at it from another point of view

Why should smokers have to put up with a whinging moaning rude person?

At the end of the day the choice is still yours, if you go into a pub and someones smoking if its THAT much of a problem for you, go elsewhere.

As I previously stated I recently quite smoking, and I couldnt give two flying ****s if someone was smoking near me.

To respond to other comments and aimed at no on in particular.

Children should never be allowed in pubs, its no place for them to be, there is little for them to do and they get bored. When bored they play up.
I exercise my right to choice, if I walk into a pub and its full of screaming brats (yes Brats because these days little "tarquin" is a little sod and needs a bloody good hiding) I will and do go elsewhere. If I walked into a pub and it was full of smack heads (and this has happened to me once or twice) I dont start lecturing them on the evils of drug abuse.
We live in an age where peoples views seemingly force them to interfere with others, and as much as I wont condone violence it is clear from some peoples attitudes why there are still assaults in the street etc.

I am pretty damn sure that if someone walked into the pub I am a regular at and asked me to not smoke in front of them, my response would be one of barely controllable anger. I could see it from some parties that said objectionist would be forcibly removed from the premises for their own safety.

Smokers do not force non smokers to sit and suffer. Most pubs now have VERY powerfull extractor fans to remove the smoke, and ANY landlord would be in trouble if they refused to put these on.
Yes as a smoker I was concerned about non smokers breathing my smoke. Yes I did smoke with a few manners other people seem to have forgotten, I wouldnt smoke in front of children (fortunate really that children are not allowed in my local after 5pm) and I would not smoke when people with me and immediatly around me were eating.

But if someone approached me and was rude and anti social to me I'd be their worst enemy, stuff my manners, I'd go all out to annoy them.
There are family pubs these days, there are pubs that have seperate lounges used mainly for food during the day that dont allow smoking at all. What else do the anti smoking brigade want?
Might as well ban sale of tobacco and watch them all cry as tax levels rise to 50 and 60% (figure clutched from thin air) as ALL tobacco revenue is lost, yet funnily enough non smokers will still get cancer. (or rather not funnily after watching a 21 one year old non smoker die of it)

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Graham, you are looking at this issue with the presumption that all people who do not smoke object to being in places where people do smoke.

No, I'm looking at it from the point of view that there are people who do not smoke would like to have the option to not *be* in places where people do smoke.

I'm looking at it from the point of view that the non-smoking *majority* should not be shoe-horned into a non-smoking area, when they should really be given preference over the smoking *minority*.

When they are out having a good time at the pub they are not bothered about the smokers lighting up. The consensus was that they didn't really notice whether anyone was smoking or not.

Or perhaps it's that they've got so used to putting up with it that they don't think about it any more.

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Look at it from another point of view

Why should smokers have to put up with a whinging moaning rude person?

You make a very good point. Unfortunately it's *my* point!!

Why should someone have to put up with anti-social behavior from somone else which impinges on their enjoyment?

Answer: They shouldn't of course!

If someone's behaving in a way that is unacceptable, *THEY* should be required to leave. So if someone's stinking up the atmosphere and making others engage in passive smoking, *WHY* should non-smokers be forced to put up with it or be told "if you don't like it, go somewhere else"?

Might as well ban sale of tobacco and watch them all cry as tax levels rise to 50 and 60% (figure clutched from thin air) as ALL tobacco revenue is lost

If you're going to try to make an argument, back it up with facts, not made up figures and try to realise that nobody's talking about "banning tobacco" just preventing others from having to breath smoker's pollution.

yet funnily enough non smokers will still get cancer. (or rather not funnily after watching a 21 one year old non smoker die of it)

Yes, of course people will still get *some* forms of cancer, but do you think *more* people will get cancer or *less*?

I'm prepared to fit in around my smoking friends because I value them.In fact ALL my smoking friends actually go out of their way when in a social situation not to offend and to take their habit away from non smokers.I prefer to offer help to those who want to give up and to offer condolances to those who can't.I refuse to give up a friend because they smoke or to belittle or demonise them because they are smokers.

In fact I used to go and sit in the smokers staffroom(before Hampshire County Council banned all smoking on county premises) because frankly there were a damn site more interesting conversations taking place.Not suffering any problems yet with my health.

Incog.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Graham

If you're going to try to make an argument, back it up with facts, not made up figures and try to realise that nobody's talking about "banning tobacco" just preventing others from having to breath smoker's pollution.

I would take your own advice there.

Just because overall smokers are in a minority does not mean that they are in a minority in a particular place. For all you know when you walk in a pub you could be the only non smoker in there.

You are assuming that all non smokers have the same ideas about smoking as you do, where are your facts to back this up?

Do we take the same stance on pollution from cars and ban them from town centres? Why should the millions of non driving public have to breath the pollution from them?

This argu errrr...discussion is becoming circular.

Indeed it is.

[fireman328]

Originally Posted by Alanmelon

As a non-smoker, I would have to be in favour of these moves. I'm all for people having choice, but when their choices affect others (which occurs regardless of having a few non-smoking areas) then it's time for something to be done about it. I've never known a single nightclub which has an effective non-smoking area, and you always leave stinking of cigarette smoke, not accounting for the potential detriment to your health.

As for the loss of tax revenue for the government - how about the money saved in the NHS through not having to pick up the pieces?

Approximately 80% of NHS expenditure is staff wages, Doctors, Nurses, Domestics etc. so the only way the NHS could save money, if smoking were banned, would be to make staff redundant, who wants to be the person who sacks the first consultant ?
Incidentally the NHS employs more people than the entire Red army had at disposal during the "cold war" days.

[Alanmelon]

Originally Posted by fireman328

Approximately 80% of NHS expenditure is staff wages, Doctors, Nurses, Domestics etc. so the only way the NHS could save money, if smoking were banned, would be to make staff redundant, who wants to be the person who sacks the first consultant ?
Incidentally the NHS employs more people than the entire Red army had at disposal during the "cold war" days.

If the consultant is sitting about unoccupied, then I would quite happily be the one to sack them. Are you suggesting that people should be on the payroll for the sake of it even if their services are not required?!