smoking and the pub

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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).

I understand the logic behind what you're saying. However as I have said before, if a blanket ban is introduced, then I very much doubt a significant proportion of the population would just stop going to pubs. Smokers would just have to adapt. In a market where there are smoking and non-smoking pubs, the non-smoking pubs may well lose out. But that is not the point of what I am saying. Of course smokers won't like having to go outside. I have never argued for smoking and non-smoking pubs, a blanket ban, perhaps with sealed smoking rooms would mean that pubs would not lose out to each other, smokers could continue to go out drinking and either smoke outside or in the smoking room, and non-smokers could also go out drinking and not have to passively smoke.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by clarie

I understand the logic behind what you're saying. However as I have said before, if a blanket ban is introduced, then I very much doubt a significant proportion of the population would just stop going to pubs. Smokers would just have to adapt.

I'm not so sure. Of course many pubs and clubs will still prosper but I also believe more and more people will have parties etc. at home meaning that again the winners will be the supermarket profits, and an increased risk to children of passive smoking.

In a market where there are smoking and non-smoking pubs, the non-smoking pubs may well lose out. But that is not the point of what I am saying. Of course smokers won't like having to go outside. I have never argued for smoking and non-smoking pubs, a blanket ban, perhaps with sealed smoking rooms would mean that pubs would not lose out to each other, smokers could continue to go out drinking and either smoke outside or in the smoking room, and non-smokers could also go out drinking and not have to passively smoke.

A smoking room. Now there's a thought.

[Salu]

Xaccers.

You simply cannot compare the dangers of smoke inhalation with the levels of stress generated by music you do not like. Stress per se is not bad for you. Some levels of stress are actually good for you. Long term stress is the issue for bad health. The same with blood pressure. Standing up from a seated position increases your blood pressure for example. It's not harmful though. However inhaling smoke not only "stresses" your body but it causes your arteries to constrict almost immediately and indeed to passive smokers too. Long term it contributes to atherosclerosis which can lead to heart problems. Add to that the myriad of other diseases that I mentioned smoking causes before and you surely must see that the comparison is silly.

[ian@huth]

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.

I always thought that successful companies prospered because they gave their customers what they want at a price that they like. I thought that competition enabled those objectives to be met. I now realise that I was wrong and that government legislation should level the playing field so that companies who don't give their customers what they want at the right price shall not be disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by clarie

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

Non-smokers would still have the choice of 30 pubs to go to but I know that you will counter that by saying they are excluded from all because there is no smoke free sections in any of them. Perhaps they should all be forced to have a sealed no-smoking room or outhouse with its own bar and non-smoking staff to cater for their needs. In the interests of fairness I would make the point that non-smokers having a 1 in 30 chance of finding a smoke free pub would be in a better position than smokers who would have no choice of pub where they are allowed to drink, socialise and have a smoke.

Originally Posted by clarie

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?

You are forgetting the third and IMHO better choice that pub owners should be free to decide whether smoking is allowed or not. Logic appears to have vanished from the dictionary of some people who are against something that cannot possibly harm them if they take their rightful decision not to enter a place where smoking is allowed.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I always thought that successful companies prospered because they gave their customers what they want at a price that they like. I thought that competition enabled those objectives to be met. I now realise that I was wrong and that government legislation should level the playing field so that companies who don't give their customers what they want at the right price shall not be disadvantaged.

Non-smokers would still have the choice of 30 pubs to go to but I know that you will counter that by saying they are excluded from all because there is no smoke free sections in any of them. Perhaps they should all be forced to have a sealed no-smoking room or outhouse with its own bar and non-smoking staff to cater for their needs. In the interests of fairness I would make the point that non-smokers having a 1 in 30 chance of finding a smoke free pub would be in a better position than smokers who would have no choice of pub where they are allowed to drink, socialise and have a smoke.

You are forgetting the third and IMHO better choice that pub owners should be free to decide whether smoking is allowed or not. Logic appears to have vanished from the dictionary of some people who are against something that cannot possibly harm them if they take their rightful decision not to enter a place where smoking is allowed.

The 'freedom of choice' argument is presented over, and over, and over again - yet I have not heard any adequate justification why the smoking ban should have a unique status among all other pieces of health and safety legislation in being optional.

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The 'freedom of choice' argument is presented over, and over, and over again - yet I have not heard any adequate justification why the smoking ban should have a unique status among all other pieces of health and safety legislation in being optional.

If we were talking about an outright ban on tobacco you might have a point. As it is, smoking remains a legal activity.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

If we were talking about an outright ban on tobacco you might have a point. As it is, smoking remains a legal activity.

And it makes you look cool

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I now realise that I was wrong and that government legislation should level the playing field so that companies who don't give their customers what they want at the right price shall not be disadvantaged.

Being allowed to smoke isn't about what people want. As I have said before a million times, smoking/non-smoking is not comparable to other such choices as gay/straight bars or live music/quiet pubs.

This is a health and safety issue.

You are forgetting the third and IMHO better choice that pub owners should be free to decide whether smoking is allowed or not. Logic appears to have vanished from the dictionary of some people who are against something that cannot possibly harm them if they take their rightful decision not to enter a place where smoking is allowed.

What makes pub owners so special? Plenty of other business owners have no choice about whether or not they allow smoking on their premises. Why do you think pub owners should be any different?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

The 'freedom of choice' argument is presented over, and over, and over again - yet I have not heard any adequate justification why the smoking ban should have a unique status among all other pieces of health and safety legislation in being optional.

Virtually everything in life has health and safety risks. Banning smoking in all enclosed public spaces is not on the statute books and therefore does not have a unique status. The law isn't that smoking is banned in all enclosed public spaces with certain exceptions if you care to read up on it.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by paddy1

As it is, smoking remains a legal activity.

That one has been done. We have already countered it by saying that many laws and health and safety legislations cover legal activites but restrict the places in which they can be carried out.

Originally Posted by Paddy1

If we were talking about an outright ban on tobacco you might have a point. As it is, smoking remains a legal activity.

A great many dangerous activities remain legal, but are universally restricted in their use for health and safety reasons.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

Being allowed to smoke isn't about what people want. As I have said before a million times, smoking/non-smoking is not comparable to other such choices as gay/straight bars or live music/quiet pubs.

This is a health and safety issue

Of course it is about what people want. If public opinion is such that they want smoking to be allowed then they can follow their democratic right to put in power such people who will ensure their will be observed in legislation. Smoking is a health and safety issue and legislation already exists to cover the effects of smoking. This legislation contains provisions which give a choice as to whether most places are smoke free or not.

Originally Posted by clarie

What makes pub owners so special? Plenty of other business owners have no choice about whether or not they allow smoking on their premises. Why do you think pub owners should be any different?

Most businesses can legally allow smoking on their premises. Read up on the Health and Safety at Work Laws http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/smoking.htm . Pub owners are not that special. Many places where smoking is banned have imposed the ban of their own free will and not as a result of legislation. Can you post a list of where smoking is banned in the UK by legislation?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

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?

I stated that it can be harmful for my health. Also long term exposure to music at legal levels is harmful to my health.
My point to you and Salu, which for some reason you appear to have deliberately missed (could it be because it defeats your argument?), is that I have the choice to expose myself to such dangers, just as I have the choice to expose myself to the dangers of many other things, such as entering a smoking establishment or crossing the road without looking.
You also have this choice, however you appear to believe that you do not.

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.

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?

So instead of giving the majority of patrons and potential patrons what they want, landlords should cater for the minority of potential patrons and all suffer finacially (as has happened in the other countries which have brought in a blanket ban), risk going out of business (as the lounge did but they won't have someone to buy it up and make a success of it) with the loss of jobs, the reduction in taxes, the increase in alcohol abuse and all that goes with it?

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

If we were talking about an outright ban on tobacco you might have a point. As it is, smoking remains a legal activity.

But it is banned in many places, cinemas, restaurants, airplanes, trains, buses, subways, why not pubs?

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But it is banned in many places, cinemas, restaurants, airplanes, trains, buses, subways, why not pubs?

Just to lift one example there, but smoking isn't banned on trains - the last train I got on Midland Mainline had a smoking carriage.