smoking and the pub

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

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.

I cannot post the list you requested, because upon further research it appears that you are correct in that many places ban smoking out of their free will. I wonder why.....

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Ach, you really do not want to drop this do you...
You are not defeating our point at all. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if there are smoking and non-smoking pubs, I can choose which I want to go it. But I don't want to have to choose where I go based on whether or not I will expose myself to harmful cigarette smoke. Sound selfish? Ah well, it has been said a million times already but I still stand by my point. I consider the health of the staff to also be important. Oh and by the way, what happens if you live next door to someone who repeatedly plays their music loud enough for you to hear it? I expect you might ask them to turn it down...similar to me asking someone to stop smoking in my presence...

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

Non-smokers are in the majority.

A TUC spokesman, Tom Mellish, told BBC Radio 5 Live that studies from eight countries showed places which became smoke-free zones attracted extra customers.

He said: "They all came back with positive results.

"Bars, restaurants and clubs increased their profits and increased their attendances because they're going out to a different market....

Brendan Barber, general secretary elect of the TUC, said the tobacco lobby was using "dubious" surveys which wrongly implied smoking bans would force people out of business.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3015995.stm
What makes you think there would be an increase in alcohol abuse? And furthermore, if there is, doesn't that say that we need to target that in addition to reducing smoking in public places?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by clarie

Non-smokers are in the majority.

Non-smokers do not make up the majority of pub goers. Where did you get the idea that they did from? Look at some of the figures that publicans have for the percentage of their customers who are smokers at http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=18936

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Non-smokers do not make up the majority of pub goers. Where did you get the idea that they did from? Look at some of the figures that publicans have for the percentage of their customers who are smokers at http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=18936

At the risk of repeating myself (again), non-smokers are the majority of the population, and if they are not a majority of pub goers, it is because that group is self-selecting. The non-smokers don't go because it's smoky, but according to the quote posted by Clarie, when smoking bans are introduced, they start to return.

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

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

by the people that own and run these establishments

why not pubs?

My point exactly.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Non-smokers do not make up the majority of pub goers. Where did you get the idea that they did from?

I never said they did. As Chris T says non-smokers form the majority of the population. Xaccers is claiming that non-smokers are the minority of potential pub goers. Which simply isn't true. Anyone is a potential pub goer for a landlord, therefore non-smokers are the majority.

Originally Posted by clarie

I never said they did. As Chris T says non-smokers form the majority of the population. Xaccers is claiming that non-smokers are the minority of potential pub goers. Which simply isn't true. Anyone is a potential pub goer for a landlord, therefore non-smokers are the majority.

And the majority of pub staff and potential staff let's not forget.

Originally Posted by Paddy1

by the people that own and run these establishments

Not in the case of aircraft. Smoking here is banned by law. What about your free choice to light up on the way to Marbella?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

At the risk of repeating myself (again), non-smokers are the majority of the population, and if they are not a majority of pub goers, it is because that group is self-selecting. The non-smokers don't go because it's smoky, but according to the quote posted by Clarie, when smoking bans are introduced, they start to return.

Can you explain why when the oft mentioned The Lounge became non-smoking that non-smokers didn't rush in in droves to sample the smoke free atmosphere? Don't you think that market forces would mean that if the majority of people wanted non-smoking pubs then they would flourish in areas where non-smoking pubs existed. The fact that even where competition in an area between smoking and non-smoking pubs exists there is no movement for more pubs to take the no-smoking route suggests there is something radically wrong with your thinking.

Look at the Health and Safety at Work laws which do not impose a complete ban on smoking. Why can there be a compromise in that law which cannot be equally made in the case of pubs?

[Salu]

Regarding the varying worries about the ban being implemented here we can look to Ireland where a ban has been in place for a while.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=32164

Cotinine (pronounced cot-tin-een) levels in the saliva of non-smokers were reduced by 80%. This indicates less exposure to smoke.
The bar staff experienced a significant drop in respiratory symtoms.
Public support for the ban rose from 43% to 67%. In bars/pubs this increased from 13% to 46%!
More than 80% of Irish smokers surveyed said that the smoke free law was "a good or very good thing".
Of those who had stopped smoking over 80% said that the law had helped them to do so.

Having a trawl around some other medical journals this came up from the European Respiratory Journal which is interesting.

http://erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/24/3/337
__________________

Originally Posted by clarie

[snip] Oh and by the way, what happens if you live next door to someone who repeatedly plays their music loud enough for you to hear it? I expect you might ask them to turn it down...similar to me asking someone to stop smoking in my presence...

Good point.

So if someone moved in next door to Xaccers and decided to exercise their "right" to play his/her music at full blast, Xaccers would not have a problem "choosing" to move house???

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Can you explain why when the oft mentioned The Lounge became non-smoking that non-smokers didn't rush in in droves to sample the smoke free atmosphere? Don't you think that market forces would mean that if the majority of people wanted non-smoking pubs then they would flourish in areas where non-smoking pubs existed. The fact that even where competition in an area between smoking and non-smoking pubs exists there is no movement for more pubs to take the no-smoking route suggests there is something radically wrong with your thinking.

For the millionth time in this thread ian, this is not about preference or profit-making, it's about health!!!
Russ has already said that there were many reasons that The Lounge went out of business. Are you really confident that resting your argument on one bar in Swansea is going to make your point loud and clear? It's hardly a good model for what could happen if a ban were introduced, and in fact it supports my argument for the blanket ban.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Can you explain why when the oft mentioned The Lounge became non-smoking that non-smokers didn't rush in in droves to sample the smoke free atmosphere? Don't you think that market forces would mean that if the majority of people wanted non-smoking pubs then they would flourish in areas where non-smoking pubs existed. The fact that even where competition in an area between smoking and non-smoking pubs exists there is no movement for more pubs to take the no-smoking route suggests there is something radically wrong with your thinking.

It seems self-evident to me that following a ban, it would take time for the effect of non-smokers returning to occur, as word of mouth and changing attitudes begin to penetrate. Perhaps you could explain why, despite being presented with evidence to the contrary, you persist in claiming your point by referring to one single establishment (the Lounge), whose non-smoking policy was not even introduced in the context of an outright ban, which is after all what we're meant to be discussing? There is nothing 'radically wrong' with my thinking on this issue.

Think of it this way - the Friday night revellers are that self selecting group who either smoke or don't mind sitting with those who do. They walk past The Lounge and why don't they go in? Because the likelihood is, one or more of their party is a smoker. And because they don't mind the smoke too much, they go somewhere else. Thus The Lounge fails.

Several of us have been saying all along that this ban will only work effectively if it is universally applied to both food and non-food establishments.

Look at the Health and Safety at Work laws which do not impose a complete ban on smoking. Why can there be a compromise in that law which cannot be equally made in the case of pubs?

The Law is a constantly evolving and developing thing, and it evolves at the pace society can tolerate. At the time that legislation was drawn up, society was not ready to support such radical action. Now, it is. This smoking ban has been framed as health and safety legislation, so its effect may well be to amend the laws you refer to.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not in the case of aircraft. Smoking here is banned by law. What about your free choice to light up on the way to Marbella?

You are quite free to do so if the airline you are flying with allows smoking and the aircraft is not registered in a country which has smoking bans in aircraft.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

You are quite free to do so if the airline you are flying with allows smoking and the aircraft is not registered in a country which has smoking bans in aircraft.

And you're free to continue smoking in a pub that's not in a country which has a smoking ban! Purleeeze, stop body-swerving. UK law makes the act of smoking on UK-registered aircraft illegal, just as UK law* is soon to make the act of smoking in UK pubs illegal.

What, exactly, is the difference? Why are we not continually assailed with 1000-post threads arguing about the infringement of civil liberties caused by the ban on smoking in aircraft? After all, if enough people wanted to fly on smoke-free planes, market forces would provide them and they could choose to fly smoke-free, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

*Albeit separately for Scotland, England, Wales and NI

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not in the case of aircraft. Smoking here is banned by law. What about your free choice to light up on the way to Marbella?

The smoking populus are not nasty, unreasonable people.

They understand that in the workplace, public buildings (such as Libraries, courts, hospitals etc), public transport (Buses, planes etc)

However, the pub is where you go to relax, after a days work, not being able to smoke at their place of work, they want to go and relax with a drink and a smoke.

however, those in support of a total ban wish to deprive them of this.

[Chrysalis]

I think their should be special rooms for smoker's that are (a) away from pub staff so staff dont have to enter the area (b) only if the landlord wants to permit it at all and (c) only in the winter and general bad weather makes it not plausable to go outside.