smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by NEONKNIGHT

You seem to be repeating the same points of view aswell, as do I, and a good many others contributing to the thread discussion.

What we need here is a smiley with a sad head, flopped to one side, tongue out, head in a noose. This would depict thread contributors and watchers who are failing to control their addiction to the thread and the need therefore for drastic action to halt the circular arguments.
__________________

Originally Posted by Nugget

Ah, but you might get run over while you're stood outside - bloody car drivers

Probably by some blighter brushing hot ash off their trousers (genital region) whilst navigating the ring road

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Chris T

A cleverly edited statistic which, of course, factors *in* all deaths from emissions, yet factors *out* all deaths from passive smoke except bar staff.

But we really are talking about a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants. I can't think of any other public enclosed place where it isn't already forbidden to smoke. Car emissions affect everyone and can be attributable to the deaths of many more people. It should be the number 1 priority.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

lippy, what I want is for smoking to be banned in all enclosed public places, and for the pubs and restaurants where there are a lot of smoking customers, a sealed room or an outhouse to be provided.

To be provided for the non- smokers I presume you mean?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

To be provided for the non- smokers I presume you mean?

Now there's a thought, Claire, would you be happy with a sealed room or outhouse that was smoke free for you to stay in?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I understand that. However, how much exposure to each substance is required to produce the carcinogenic effect? How many tonnes of toxins are released into the environment annually by each activity? And how much could reasonably be reduced by the introduction of sensible legislation?

You can't simply say 'car exhaust kills more people than tobacco smoke'. Before the statistic can be meaningful, you have to understand how many tonnes of each pollutant is required to kill one person.

None of the above, by the way, should be taken to mean that nothing should be done about air pollution and vehicle exhaust's role in it. In fact, a lot has been done already. Legislation has removed lead from petrol, fitted catalytic converters to exhaust pipes and reduced sulphur and particulates in diesel engine exhaust. Still, more can be done. And I will be happy to debate it endlessly just as soon as one of the pro-smokers who profess to care so much about it, demonstrates their care by starting another thread on it, instead of using it as a spurious argument against targeting smoking.

But to use your argument from earlier, when I was asking for specific research, that as this would take a long time to undertake should not mean that we do not act now. Therefore would it not be sensible to ban (or seriously restrict) driving and flying until we have all the facts? As we appear to have done for smoking in public places.

For me the comparison was more about Government time and priority, ratehr than a spurious, we shouldn't do anything about smoking because vehicle emissions are very bad too.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by andyl

Probably by some blighter brushing hot ash off their trousers (genital region) whilst navigating the ring road

I nearly ran into a lamppost when I dropped a fag down myself once

The weird thing was I wasn't even in the car

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now there's a thought, Claire, would you be happy with a sealed room or outhouse that was smoke free for you to stay in?

It's an interesting notion but here's the thing:
a) The majority of the population are NON smokers.
b) My non-smoking does not affect you in the slightest. It is the smoke itself causing the offense, therefore it should be the smoke that moves.
c) A non-smoking outhouse does not protect the bar staff.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

c) A non-smoking outhouse does not protect the bar staff.

Self service. That is the only answer

Originally Posted by Paddy1

But we really are talking about a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants. I can't think of any other public enclosed place where it isn't already forbidden to smoke. Car emissions affect everyone and can be attributable to the deaths of many more people. It should be the number 1 priority.

Again, you are contrasting the entirety of the problem with air pollution (not all of which is from vehicles) with a specific aspect of the problem with smoking, thereby distorting the ratio of the apparent scale and complexity of the two problems.

Even so, maybe vehicle emissions should be a higher priority, but as vehicle emissions are a direct result of economic activity (so you can't simply ban, or even heavily restrict, vehicles), and are a social necessity for vast numbers of people, the issue is more complex and requires bigger, strategic solutions. Many such solutions are already in place - catalytic converters, low-sulphur fuel, lead-free fuel, emissions testing in the MOT, and so on - and many are in development or are encouraged by the Government through tax, such as LPG, fuel cell and similar technology.

This smoking ban, on the other hand, has been identified as a very straightforward way of tackling a serious, but identifiable and containable problem.

And as I have said countless times now, the existence of other problems does not in any way mean we should do nothing about smoking - especially if smoking is easier to target.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

It's an interesting notion but here's the thing:
a) The majority of the population are NON smokers.
b) My non-smoking does not affect you in the slightest. It is the smoke itself causing the offense, therefore it should be the smoke that moves.
c) A non-smoking outhouse does not protect the bar staff.

1. The majority of patrons of smoking establishments are smokers. This will affect them more than the majority of non-smokers in the UK
2. You have the choice of not entering a smoking establishment, no one is forcing you
4. Where's 3?
5. Not working in a smoking establishment protects anyone who doesn't want to work there due to the smoke.
6. Your wishing to deny me the choice to enter a smoking establishment and eat affects me.




3. Ahh here it is

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But to use your argument from earlier, when I was asking for specific research, that as this would take a long time to undertake should not mean that we do not act now. Therefore would it not be sensible to ban (or seriously restrict) driving and flying until we have all the facts? As we appear to have done for smoking in public places.

For me the comparison was more about Government time and priority, ratehr than a spurious, we shouldn't do anything about smoking because vehicle emissions are very bad too.

You're expecting prioritisation from the Government that dedicated weeks of Parliamentary time to stopping a few thousand horse riders from chasing foxes across the countryside? If there's one thing this Government does not do, it's prioritise effectively.

Even so, I reject the suggestion that just because we are talking about smoking now, it means that no-one has done anything about vehicle emissions. Without wishing to repeat myself, I said in a previous post above, the emissions problem is vastly greater and more complex. Nevertheless, a lot has been done. Nobody is saying we should do nothing about emissions until we understand the problem better. What I said earlier was that I will not accept the casual abuse of statistics that has been posted, comparing air pollution death with passive smoking death among bar staff, when we have no background or context within which we might understand if the comparison is even valid.

Originally Posted by Angua

One night at work my husband needed to get some information (away from the normal work environment) from some others at work and the only way he could get the info was to join the smokers (who had the info) in the outdoor shelter. That morning he came home reeking of cigs!

Oh! The Humanity! LOL!

Seriously, you're quite right. Smoking is a smelly habbit, especially for non-smokers.


__________________

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Self service. That is the only answer

Or employ bar staff who smoke themselves. It could be added to the job description quite easily!

[Salu]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Self service. That is the only answer

We are not talking about this anymore....... The discussion has moved on...

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

That's a thoroughly bad analogy - the ban on smoking is not going to prevent you from standing outside a pub to smoke. It is just going to restrict you from smoking inside.

I dunno, I quite liked my analogy My ban wouldn't stop you from walking alongside the road, just from walking on the road itself. Similarly, you're suggesting that smokers will be allowed to smoke near the pub, just not inside it.

I don't disagree that the ban would prevent people from having a smoke in the street, but what I'm saying (and have been all along) is that the ban takes away the fundamental choice that you and I and everyone else, as adults, currently have over what we are allowed to do and when and where. I believe vehemently in adults being given the option to choose what is right for them, this applies to smoking cigarettes in a pub, drinking alcohol, having an abortion, believing in God, standing for parliament as a member of the BNP, etc... etc... etc... However, I'm aware that some people feel that it is acceptable to have your rights removed like this. Personally, I'd like to have the choice to smoke outside or inside the pub... or even not to smoke at all if I chose to.

I'm getting a sense of dÃÃâ€*’©ja vu

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Again, you are contrasting the entirety of the problem with air pollution (not all of which is from vehicles) with a specific aspect of the problem with smoking, thereby distorting the ratio of the apparent scale and complexity of the two problems.

But this legislation is designed to protect staff in places of work and as the only place of work where smoking is still permitted (that I can think of) is pubs. So it really only protects bar staff which is a fair point. How often is the general non-smoker in a pub, a few nights a week on average? Their exposure to tobacco smoke is minimal compared to the toxins and nasty stuff that we are all breathing 24/7. General polution is a much bigger problem and affects many more people than this legislation is designed to protect.

Even so, maybe vehicle emissions should be a higher priority, but as vehicle emissions are a direct result of economic activity (so you can't simply ban, or even heavily restrict, vehicles), and are a social necessity for vast numbers of people, the issue is more complex and requires bigger, strategic solutions. Many such solutions are already in place - catalytic converters, low-sulphur fuel, lead-free fuel, emissions testing in the MOT, and so on - and many are in development or are encouraged by the Government through tax, such as LPG, fuel cell and similar technology.

This smoking ban, on the other hand, has been identified as a very straightforward way of tackling a serious, but identifiable and containable problem.

And as I have said countless times now, the existence of other problems does not in any way mean we should do nothing about smoking - especially if smoking is easier to target.

I agree that it is much more difficult to target econimic activity for various reasons. But to legislate for the protection of an area of employment which kills 54? bar staff a year seems to be a case of misplaced priorities.

Ok, smoking is easy to target and I'm all for segregated smoking areas with adequate ventillation to address the concerns of bar staff but I get the feeling that the hype over the smoking ban in pubs is more to do with the fact that non-smokers just don't like it. How much would it really affect non-smokers if there were separate smoking areas in pubs, unless you're there more than you really should be.