smoking and the pub

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

You suggested that one reason it may have taken time to do well was beacuase of people's habits. I don't doubt that was part of it but human nature also consists of curiosity and the ability to make a choice. Most people will at least try something to see what's it's like.

We have no way of knowing how good the pub was, as you mentioned before. The fact that it was a non-smoking pub may have been a factor but we have no idea how much. So there is really no point in further discussing it.

[Xaccers]

If a next door neighbour was to continually play their music at the legal limit, then I am not in a position to demand they do not continue to do so.
Just as while I'm sleeping during the day from working nights, I cannot demand that the builders down the road stop using their JCB's or Jack Hammers, and I certainly wouldn't demand legislation to be able to do so! Instead I close the window.
If someone is performing a completely legal activity which I do not want to participate in, it is up to me and not them to rectify the matter, either by moving myself away, or putting up a barrier of protection between myself and their activities.
Additionally, such activities by my neighbour would also have a detrimental effect on my health, despite what you have claimed.

UK registered airlines ban smoking due to fire risks not respitory health risks.

It is pointless talking about a ban on smoking in pubs as there is no such ban put forward.
There is however a proposed ban on smoking in places which serve food.
This will lead the establishment to either drop smoking, or drop food.
Now a large restaurant such as Harvester where it's main income is from food is not likely to suffer much (I'd also like to point out that in every harvester I've been in, there has been no smoke at all in the eating area so the ban won't make a difference to patrons who go there to eat), however, pubs which serve food but are predominantly still a drinking establishment are the ones who will be forced to drop food rather than smoking.
The Lounge is a prime example of what happens when a drinking establishment drops smoking while other establishments allow it (by dropping food post ban).
They go bust.
The Lounge used to be a smoking establishment and didn't go bust, it gave up smoking and died.
People would rather drink in a smoking pub than in a similar pub which is non-smoking and serves food.
Now Clarie, I know you don't like us using the Lounge as an example because it is such a good example, and you can go on about "a blanket ban which levels the playing field" but as a blanket ban is not what is being proposed, your'e talking about what if's and maybe's rather than what actually is likely to happen.
After the ban on smoking in establishments which serve food, you'll have fewer places to eat simply because pubs who serve food will no longer be able to, even those who have seperated no-smoking areas which are completely smoke free, and only request their workers who are smokers to work in the smoking area.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The Lounge used to be a smoking establishment and didn't go bust, it gave up smoking and died.

Plus the part you continuously neglect to mention, they did not get the financial aid and promotion which other businesses have recieved to help them succeed.

[Nikko]

I like this thread. I was concerned I had amnesia, but I see now I am remembering whole chunks of dialogue from earlier on, when they get posted again.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Plus the part you continuously neglect to mention, they did not get the financial aid and promotion which other businesses have recieved to help them succeed.

Did it get that financial aid at all during it's existance, or just not while operating as a non-smoking establishment?
Has every other pub/bar/restaurant in that area recieved aid and the Lounge was the only one which did not?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Did it get that financial aid at all during it's existance, or just while operating as a non-smoking establishment?

I'm not sure - but the aid that local business apply to the Welsh Assembly for when they're in trouble from increased/unfair competiton was refused on 4 different occasions.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Has every other pub/bar/restaurant in that area recieved aid and the Lounge was the only one which did not?

3 other bars in Wind Street applied for it and were successful.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'm not sure - but the aid that local business apply to the Welsh Assembly for when they're in trouble from increased/unfair competiton was refused on 4 different occasions.

Is that you're not sure what it's smoking status was at the time of the applications, or your not sure if it's recieved ait at all?

Originally Posted by Russ D

3 other bars in Wind Street applied for it and were successful.

I'm I right in thinking there are more than 4 bars in Wind Street?
Did only the 3 successful bars and the Lounge apply for the aid, or have other bars also been unsuccessful

Really greatful for all the info Russ

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If a next door neighbour was to continually play their music at the legal limit, then I am not in a position to demand they do not continue to do so.

Therefore you are not always in a position to choose whether or not to expose yourself to it.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If someone is performing a completely legal activity which I do not want to participate in, it is up to me and not them to rectify the matter, either by moving myself away, or putting up a barrier of protection between myself and their activities.

Yeah you might have to move house. I bet you would be annoyed about that wouldn't you.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Additionally, such activities by my neighbour would also have a detrimental effect on my health, despite what you have claimed.

So we agree then that sometimes people impose things upon us that have a detrimental effect on our health.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now Clarie, I know you don't like us using the Lounge as an example because it is such a good example

No Xaccers, I don't like talking about the Lounge because it is an extremely bad example. You can continue to use it if you wish, but bear in mind you know nothing about why it closed, and it does not prove anything at all as regards the smoking ban.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Is that you're not sure what it's smoking status was at the time of the applications, or your not sure if it's recieved ait at all?

I'm not sure if they've even applied for it - I'm not aware they're in any trouble at the moment, which is what the package is for.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I'm I right in thinking there are more than 4 bars in Wind Street?

Yes, there are more. However the stats* for last year showed that during 2004 (when 3 of it's 4 applications were turned down) 47 businesses in the Swansea area successfully recieved the hardship grant out of 62 applications*. Up until June of this year no business other than The Lounge had been turned down 4 times.


*still hunting for the link, will post it when i find it.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

Therefore you are not always in a position to choose whether or not to expose yourself to it.
Yeah you might have to move house. I bet you would be annoyed about that wouldn't you.
So we agree then that sometimes people impose things upon us that have a detrimental effect on our health.

As I said, I have the choice to take steps to protect myself without interfering with someone else's legal activity.
Just as you do.
The difference is, while I'm willing to take responsibility for my own health, you want everyone else to take responsibility for yours.

Originally Posted by Clarie

No Xaccers, I don't like talking about the Lounge because it is an extremely bad example. You can continue to use it if you wish, but bear in mind you know nothing about why it closed, and it does not prove anything at all as regards the smoking ban.

The Lounge as a smoking establishment didn't close.
The Lounge became a non-smoking establishment and went bust.
The Lounge was re-opened as a smoking establishment and hasn't gone bust

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The Lounge was re-opened as a smoking establishment and hasn't gone bust

Yet. It's only been reopened since June.

[clarie]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As I said, I have the choice to take steps to protect myself without interfering with someone else's legal activity.
Just as you do.

So if there was a persistent problem with the music you wouldn't get a tad annoyed?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The Lounge as a smoking establishment didn't close.
The Lounge became a non-smoking establishment and went bust.
The Lounge was re-opened as a smoking establishment and hasn't gone bust

So? Repeating all of this isn't helping your case. It is not a good example as has been said many times before and has nothing to do with what would happen if a ban were introduced.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by clarie

So if there was a persistent problem with the music you wouldn't get a tad annoyed?

Yes, hence some of the health issues which you denied.
However, if my neighbour is not breaking any laws, it is up to me, as the person who is responsible for my health, to take steps to reduce the damage to a level which is acceptable to me, such as insulating the walls, wearing earplugs, moving house, installing double glazing etc.
It certainly doesn't involve interfering with my neighbour's ability to perform a legal activity.
You see, as I said, I take responsibility for my own health.

Originally Posted by Clarie

So? Repeating all of this isn't helping your case. It is not a good example as has been said many times before and has nothing to do with what would happen if a ban were introduced.

Repeating "it's a bad example" won't make it a bad example Clarie, I've given several reasons as to why it is a good example.

It was successful as a smoking establishment.
It failed as a non-smoking establishment, despite having the monopoly on non-smoking establishments in Wind Road.
Therefore if there was a mass demand for non-smoking pubs, it would have had sufficient numbers of customers to survive, after all, it managed while being a smoking establishment, and you claim that would mean it was catering to a minority.

[Chris W]

Originally Posted by clarie

It is not a good example as has been said many times before and has nothing to do with what would happen if a ban were introduced.

In that case, does anyone have another example that we can use? frankly the discussion about the lounge is getting rather boring as it is just going round and round in circles. Someone must know of another non smoking pub- or perhaps people don't want to mention it because of the success/ failure that it has been for fear that it will weaken their arguments.

One note about The Lounge though- it did amuse me how on two occasions i went past the lounge and saw two members of staff... standing outside.... smoking!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris W

In that case, does anyone have another example that we can use? frankly the discussion about the lounge is getting rather boring as it is just going round and round in circles. Someone must know of another non smoking pub- or perhaps people don't want to mention it because of the success/ failure that it has been for fear that it will weaken their arguments.

One note about The Lounge though- it did amuse me how on two occasions i went past the lounge and saw two members of staff... standing outside.... smoking!

Idealy we need to hear about pubs which do food on the side as it is those who will be affected the most by the ban, rather than pubs which just do booze.

So, either a pub which does food on the side and its' success or failure at going 100% smoke free, and a similar pub and it's success or failure by ditching food.