smoking and the pub

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Again I agree, it has nothing to do with the point you made about lack of choice, but it has everything to do with the point other people have made suggesting that there are enough potential punters out there just gagging to to to the pub but won't because of smokers.

Well point it at someone else then!!

Originally Posted by Paddy1

I didn't say you did.

In that case I apologise but you REALLY need to make use of the 'quote' button.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

I don't know what you're talking about any more but that's ok cos I don't think you do either...

I was comparing two things and demonstrating that the exposure to the risks is in my hands, you, well you were going off in a tangent, possibly because you didn't want to admit that my point was correct, possibly for other unknown reasons...

Originally Posted by clarie

Which proves that only a blanket ban would work, because otherwise we will not be able to have a choice of smoking or non-smoking pubs.

The new law however would force pubs which serve food to either go non-smoking (and lose business, maybe even go out of business) or go non-feeding.
So rather than having a no-smoking area where people who don't wish to participate in passive smoking can go and eat and drink, and a smoking area for everyone else, you get a pub which is smoking only, and does not serve food, so a lot of people are now drinking on empty stomachs.
So as a non-smoker who doesn't want to go into any building where a cigarette could be lit, you still won't want to!
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

Well point it at someone else then!!

I was responding to the information you provided because no one else has provided it, sorry if it came across as otherwise Russ

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Russ D

In that case I apologise but you REALLY need to make use of the 'quote' button.

Isn't this whole discussion about the demand for non-smoking pubs from the non-smoking fraternity?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Isn't this whole discussion about the demand for non-smoking pubs from the non-smoking fraternity?

Well the original post pointed out that such a ban would reduce the number of cigarettes smoked, which in turn would reduce the tax revenue from cigarettes, so taxes elsewhere are likely to go up to compensate...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Isn't this whole discussion about the demand for non-smoking pubs from the non-smoking fraternity?

Yes, but throughout this thread other people have come forward with other views. Making a post like that in the middle of other conversations is going to cause misunderstandings, as I demonstrated...

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well the original post pointed out that such a ban would reduce the number of cigarettes smoked, which in turn would reduce the tax revenue from cigarettes, so taxes elsewhere are likely to go up to compensate...

Just think of the taxes in years to come when more people live longer and receive pensions for a much longer period.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Just think of the taxes in years to come when more people live longer and receive pensions for a much longer period.

Exactly!
We should be encouraging unhealthy living, dangerous sports, running with scissors etc

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But wasn't the point that when given the choice the non-smoking pub folded?

Yes exactly. If there were a blanket ban however, non-smoking pubs wouldn't lose out to other pubs, so all pubs would be on an even playing field.

Originally Posted by Paddy1

We still won't have a choice under a total ban.

No but at least then everyone can go to a pub, rather than just the smokers, who can just nip outside for a fag.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I was comparing two things and demonstrating that the exposure to the risks is in my hands, you, well you were going off in a tangent, possibly because you didn't want to admit that my point was correct, possibly for other unknown reasons...

There was no tangent, you were comparing passive smoking to having to listen to someone else's music, I said that the difference is there are no health implications with the music case. (Except that you then decided it would raise your stress levels, which as I pointed out is nothing compared to the health risks associated with smoking.) It is as simple as that and I genuinely have no desire to discuss it further.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So rather than having a no-smoking area where people who don't wish to participate in passive smoking can go and eat and drink, and a smoking area for everyone else, you get a pub which is smoking only, and does not serve food, so a lot of people are now drinking on empty stomachs.

Well as you and many others are arguing against the nanny state, we won't worry too much about the empty stomachs, as I am sure most adults do not need to be fed by nanny. If people are going to drink irresponsibly they are going to drink irresponsibly.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

There was no tangent, you were comparing passive smoking to having to listen to someone else's music, I said that the difference is there are no health implications with the music case. (Except that you then decided it would raise your stress levels, which as I pointed out is nothing compared to the health risks associated with smoking.) It is as simple as that and I genuinely have no desire to discuss it further.

You erroneously stated that raised blood pressure and stress levels were not a health risk, I corrected you.

Originally Posted by clarie

Well as you and many others are arguing against the nanny state, we won't worry too much about the empty stomachs, as I am sure most adults do not need to be fed by nanny. If people are going to drink irresponsibly they are going to drink irresponsibly.

However it would be a nanny state, a bad nanny who doesn't give her wards the ability to smoke and eat at the same time as drinking.

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Exactly!
We should be encouraging unhealthy living, dangerous sports, running with scissors etc

I am worried about the effects of passive running with scissors. Why should I be faced with this threat in my local?

I can imagine the scene - I am there having a pint and a fag, when the black market indian takeaway delivery arrives - there is a mass exodus of gasping boozers who all dash outside for a crafty bit of illegal nosh in a quiet corner of the car park hoping the food police dont raid that night.

Just as you rip into a bootleg poppadum, some slavering maverick mad dog maniac runs along with scissors trying to do a runner with the illicit contents of your carrier bag with 2 dulled out tin foil cartons in.

I slink back into the den of eniquity, pausing only to light a roll up, cursing the good fortune of the happy families in the brightly lit airy smoke free cloned happy diner kitchen fun kiddies room carvery black forest gateau big mac even if its not raining eatery accross the street. How I envy them their 4oz rump steak (£37.99 - alternative Tuesdays buy one, buy another one, we charge you double offer) as they delicately sip on their lemonade or vimto fruit juice cocktail.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You erroneously stated that raised blood pressure and stress levels were not a health risk, I corrected you.

No I didn't.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

No I didn't.

Oh Really?

Originally Posted by clarie

I said that the difference is there are no health implications with the music case.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

Yes exactly. If there were a blanket ban however, non-smoking pubs wouldn't lose out to other pubs, so all pubs would be on an even playing field.

I don't really follow the logic here although I see your point about an even playing field. If there were, as has been stated around 30 other smoking pubs/clubs etc. within close proximity to the single non-smoking establishment would this not have meant that the odds were stacked in favour of this establishment as it had limited competition. In fact a virtual monoploy on non smoking pubs within this area. Would not, as has been claimed on this thread, all the people who insisted on a total smoke free environment frequented more often. Quite simply, where was the demand for just one non-smoking pub?

I accept that there may have been other reasons why this one particular establishment didn't succeed, but it at least serves as an illustrative example of pro-banners not really putting there money where there mouth is. But no doubt the pros will conveniantly overlook this fact and go on to argue that all smoking, everywhere, for all time, should be banned regardless.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oh Really?

Xaccers I never said that higher blood pressure levels, or stress levels were not bad for your health. I said that when you listen to music you don't like, it is not bad for your health. Can you see the difference? If listening to music you don't like stresses you out, then that is different, despite the fact that I disagree that it will affect the health of the general population as much as passive smoking. Now can we drop this?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I accept that there may have been other reasons why this one particular establishment didn't succeed, but it at least serves as an illustrative example of pro-banners not really putting there money where there mouth is. But no doubt the pros will conveniantly overlook this fact and go on to argue that all smoking, everywhere, for all time, should be banned regardless.

The point I was making was that people were saying the non-smoking pub was losing out to smoking pubs. This would not happen if all pubs banned smoking. People were saying that given a choice, landlords would not ban smoking for commercial reasons. I say, this may be true, but my major concern is not for the profits of the landlords. If a blanket ban is introduced, the pubs, as I said, will all be in an even playing field.

Furthermore, why should the non-smokers have just one, out of 30 pubs to go to?

If it were a choice between all pubs allowing smoking, or all pubs banning smoking, then surely you can see the logic for the blanket ban?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

The point I was making was that people were saying the non-smoking pub was losing out to smoking pubs. This would not happen if all pubs banned smoking. People were saying that given a choice, landlords would not ban smoking for commercial reasons. I say, this may be true, but my major concern is not for the profits of the landlords. If a blanket ban is introduced, the pubs, as I said, will all be in an even playing field.

But is stands to reason that if a non-smoking pub was in demand then this one would have prospered. The pubs may be on an even playing field if a blanket ban was introduced but clearly would not be catering for demand. An even playing field would also be to have 15 smoking and 15 non-smoking, would it not?
(Also of course, the Government fudge is clearly not creating an even playing field).

Furthermore, why should the non-smokers have just one, out of 30 pubs to go to?

Agreed, make many more pubs smoke free to create a fairer choice for all. But why hasn't this happened? As I said before 15 smoke free/15 smoking. 8ut even in this case I wonder which 15 would prosper?