smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by 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.

Who would be the person to have to go in and collect empties, empty ash trays, and clean up at the end of the evening?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Who would be the person to have to go in and collect empties, empty ash trays, and clean up at the end of the evening?

Just becuase the room is separate is doesn't mean it wont be subject to air extraction guidelines.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just becuase the room is separate is doesn't mean it wont be subject to air extraction guidelines.

But these do not always work.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Yes because there is an alternative to this, it's called home. At home no one else has to passively smoke, or if they do, it means that the smoker is a nasty, unreasonable person.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just becuase the room is separate is doesn't mean it wont be subject to air extraction guidelines.

From 'Ventilation and Air Filtration: The Science', at http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=268

"The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America adopted a disclaimer that states: "Some air cleaners may help to reduce secondhand smoke to a limited degree, but no air filtration or air purification system can completely eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness. Also, a simple reduction of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke."

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by clarie

Yes because there is an alternative to this, it's called home. At home no one else has to passively smoke, or if they do, it means that the smoker is a nasty, unreasonable person.

Clarie, you have to admit that this one is fairly ridiculous. If I choose to have a fag in my own home, why does that make me 'a nasty, unreasonable person'? The only time I smoke in the same room as Mrs Nug now is when we're watching something on the TV and it's after 10 o'clock. Other than that, I'm either in another room or outside.

If Mrs Nug comes into the dining room, for example, there's not a lot I can do to legislate for that. IMO, it's a little harsh to suggest that, in a house that I pay for, I can't smoke around other people, if I so choose,

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Clarie, you have to admit that this one is fairly ridiculous. If I choose to have a fag in my own home, why does that make me 'a nasty, unreasonable person'? The only time I smoke in the same room as Mrs Nug now is when we're watching something on the TV and it's after 10 o'clock. Other than that, I'm either in another room or outside.

If Mrs Nug comes into the dining room, for example, there's not a lot I can do to legislate for that. IMO, it's a little harsh to suggest that, in a house that I pay for, I can't smoke around other people, if I so choose,

I don't think I am being ridiculous but you are right in that the words 'nasty and unreasonable' are harsh words, I only chose them because they were the ones Pierre used.

However I still think it careless to smoke in front of other people, unless of course they don't mind, in your own home. If Mrs Nug is happy to be there when you smoke, well that's nothing to do with me. But I meant more for people who don't like their partners smoking around them and particularly for those who smoke in front of children and pets.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by clarie

I don't think I am being ridiculous but you are right in that the words 'nasty and unreasonable' are harsh words, I only chose them because they were the ones Pierre used.

However I still think it careless to smoke in front of other people, unless of course they don't mind, in your own home. If Mrs Nug is happy to be there when you smoke, well that's nothing to do with me. But I meant more for people who don't like their partners smoking around them and particularly for those who smoke in front of children and pets.

Fair enough then

Having said that, I dare you to find a way to stop a cat from following you everywhere if you're trying to avoid it when you're having a fag

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Nugget

Having said that, I dare you to find a way to stop a cat from following you everywhere if you're trying to avoid it when you're having a fag

Just shut him in a room or outside until you have done?

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by clarie

Just shut him in a room or outside until you have done?

Nah, then they'll just poo in a corner somewhere to punish me

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

So you say that the time is now right to support such radical action. Who says that the time is now right and if it is why has a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed places not been implemented?

What are the facts as applied to England where I reside?

There is no legislation that bans smoking in all public places and there may never be such legislation.

There is no legislation that bans smoking in places that serve alcohol and there may never be such legislation.

There is no legislation that bans smoking in places that serve food and there may never be such legislation.

No matter what the anti smoking brigade want they have to remember that the millions of people who are entitled to vote in this country and who also smoke will have to be listened to by any government in power who will balk at upsetting such a powerful section of the voting populace. I cannot see any solution being accepted that doesn't offer some sort of compromise.

No matter how many times the anti smoking posters in this thread say "for the millionth time" and words to that effect it doesn't alter the basic fact that their view of the situation may be completely at odds with the truth. In fact the very saying shows that they are not telling the truth.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

Why would it take time for the effect of non-smokers to return? If there was such a demand for it, coupled with some well placed ads etc, you would think the place would have been heaving.

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.

I think this is a nice attempt to discredit a good example which doesn't fit your argument. Presumably the problems with the Lounge we're referring to occured quite recently, therefore in the context of prevailing attitudes towards smoking and the lead up to ban, not 30 years ago.

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.

Self-selecting or typical pub/club goers. If your statement is true then what does that say. You would still think that the non-smoking policy of just one out of many alternatives would have drawn enough custom to remain viable.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

So you say that the time is now right to support such radical action. Who says that the time is now right and if it is why has a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed places not been implemented?

What are the facts as applied to England where I reside?

There is no legislation that bans smoking in all public places and there may never be such legislation.

There is no legislation that bans smoking in places that serve alcohol and there may never be such legislation.

There is no legislation that bans smoking in places that serve food and there may never be such legislation.

No matter what the anti smoking brigade want they have to remember that the millions of people who are entitled to vote in this country and who also smoke will have to be listened to by any government in power who will balk at upsetting such a powerful section of the voting populace. I cannot see any solution being accepted that doesn't offer some sort of compromise.

No matter how many times the anti smoking posters in this thread say "for the millionth time" and words to that effect it doesn't alter the basic fact that their view of the situation may be completely at odds with the truth. In fact the very saying shows that they are not telling the truth.

The Labour Party says it's right, and put it in its manifesto. The electorate democratically (within the limitations of our system) agreed with them and put them in power.

The Cabinet has agreed the wording of the Bill, and has introduced it to Parliament. It *will* be passed into Law, and it is the stated intention of the Health secretary that the new law will be a precursor to an outright ban within three years - three years, incidentally, is still within the lifetime of the current Parliament.

Where you say 'there may never be such legislation': on some of your points, maybe, but on the issue of smoking where food is served ... well, stick your head in the sand if you want. You'll be forced to come to terms with it within about 18 months from now.

It's interesting what you say about Government and other parties having to listen to a powerful section of the populace ... do you really think there's a cat in hell's chance of this being repealed once it's passed? Especially as in the UK, only 25% of people smoke and that number is dwindling steadily?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by clarie
Yes because there is an alternative to this, it's called home. At home no one else has to passively smoke, or if they do, it means that the smoker is a nasty, unreasonable person.

Pot kettle - kettle pot

[clarie]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

No matter how many times the anti smoking posters in this thread say "for the millionth time" and words to that effect it doesn't alter the basic fact that their view of the situation may be completely at odds with the truth. In fact the very saying shows that they are not telling the truth.

We are saying 'for the millionth time' so frequently because we are going round in circles, and how on earth does that suggest we are not telling the truth??

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Why would it take time for the effect of non-smokers to return? If there was such a demand for it, coupled with some well placed ads etc, you would think the place would have been heaving.

Do we know there were well-placed ads?

Originally Posted by Slackdad

I think this is a nice attempt to discredit a good example which doesn't fit your argument.

Similarly your use of it is a nice attempt to leap with enthusiasm on the one case mentioned that fits in with your argument.

Originally Posted by Slackdad

Self-selecting or typical pub/club goers. If your statement is true then what does that say. You would still think that the non-smoking policy of just one out of many alternatives would have drawn enough custom to remain viable.

Since none of us know anything about why the Lounge closed I suggest it is misleading to use it in such an argument.

I know a LOT of people who would love to be able to go to genuine non-smoking establishments.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Why would it take time for the effect of non-smokers to return? If there was such a demand for it, coupled with some well placed ads etc, you would think the place would have been heaving.

People are people. They get into a habit of going certain places and doing certain things. There's nothing controversial about that.

I think this is a nice attempt to discredit a good example which doesn't fit your argument. Presumably the problems with the Lounge we're referring to occured quite recently, therefore in the context of prevailing attitudes towards smoking and the lead up to ban, not 30 years ago.

Not in the slightest. Rather, it's an appeal for evidence arising out of a context that bears at least *some* resemblance to the matter under discussion. For complete refutation of The Lounge as an adequate example of anything in this topic, why not look to Ireland, where the outright smoking ban has signally failed to bankrupt every pub in the country (or even most, or many, of them). So, we want to establish what might happen to business when smoking is excluded. We are confronted with the choice of examining one bar in Swansea, competing against a couple of dozen others where smoking is still allowed, or examining all bars in Ireland, where a ban has been introduced. I know, let's choose the example that fits the circumstances, not the one that fits the point we want to make, shall we?

Self-selecting or typical pub/club goers. If your statement is true then what does that say. You would still think that the non-smoking policy of just one out of many alternatives would have drawn enough custom to remain viable.

I would not have thought so at all, for the reasons I posted previously.

What makes a typical pub-goer? Is there something in the genes of a person who likes to socialise in a public house with a glass of alcoholic drink that predisposes them towards being a smoker, or one who doesn't mind smoke?

You have only to write that proposal down to see how ridiculous it looks. Back to Ireland, where a post-ban drop in drink sales of 15% has been more than compensated for in new food sales. It seems (though it is admittedly early days) that the clientele is beginning to change.