dundeevilla

Fair enough. But why are you against the idea of giving them their own shiny smoke-free pubs, while the smokers have theirs? Why are you against compromise and choice?

Is it really too much to ask of our highly paid political masters to come up with a workable middle-way solution which incorporates an adult choice for both smokers and non-smokers? Are we really happy with them having no talent or imagination that they just tax and/or ban things as a solution to our perceived problems.

At last the cavalry has arrived in this thread. Dr Stupid, Gringo, I salute your indefatigability. And hycus-flange - you called me a nazi in the "Maddie" McCann thread, but you're alright by me. Give adults choice in a democratic society. Pubs are not health clubs. Smoking and non-smoking premises a la Spain is the right way forward.

Correct, and why is that? Why has there been no demand and clamour for non-smoking pubs from the drinking masses? As I have said, I understand why some people do not like smoky atmospheres, and that's why I think landlords should be given some incentives to go smoke-free. Then we would have more smoke-free premises, and people would have a choice. Surely that is not a bad thing?

I can go for a drink without it harming anyone else whatsoever. Without it affecting anybody's else's health, or making their clothes stink. You can't say the same about cigarettes. I agree, I was just trying to make the point it's ironic that people in pubs complain about the damage being done to their health by smokers when they're.....oh never mind!

Under the new law landlords could be given incentives to go smoke-free, then make the choice. If what the majority on here are saying is true then most landlords would do that, because the majority of people want smoke-free pubs. A few pubs inevitably wouldn't go smoke-free, leaving the smokers free to puff away and only poison each other. Everyone is happy, we still have an adult choice, bob's yer uncle. If people are going to argue that landlords would not go smoke-free given the choice, then there must be very good reasons for that.

Just thought i'd point out that it's been proven that alcohol does NOT kill brain cells, actually. Well I stand corrected, but there's no doubt it's a noxious sustance.

What choice? I live in a suburban village with ONE pub within five minute's walk. Yes but it's your choice to live in a place with one pub Mike. If your landlord was given a choice of whether or not to adopt the ban under any new law, based on the demands of his customers, then he would make the choice accordingly. Inevitably not everyone would be happy with his choice, whatever it was, but that's life. You can't always get what you want.

It's not a direct comparison and I didn't say that people drinking were poisoning others around them. But if you think about it it's quite ironic that some people who go to pubs are complaining about other people in those pubs damaging their health, when they themsleves are sitting there drinking a pretty poisonous substance that is going to damage their health and kill their brain cells (through their own choice though - so that's fine). You obviously don't agree with consenting adults being given a choice of smoking and non-smoking pubs and bars, and that's fair enough. I presume you agree that dictating to people what they should and should not be doing is the correct way forward. I disagree with that position. I say again, I am not defending smoking, which is without doubt not a healthy thing to do. However, I am defending freedom of choice, which is what this country is supposed to be about.

It is simple yeah TRL, that's kind of my point in all this. If you choose to work in a smoking pub, then you probably don't have a problem with it. If you don't like smoky atmospheres then you wouldn't choose to work in a smoky pub. That's why when politicians cite pub staff as a legitimate reason for this ban they are being disingenuous. Bar staff know what they are gettiing into when they take the job, so they obviously don't mind smoky atmospheres that much. If they did they wouldn't be there. They are adults and make that choice. Choice people, it's a wonderful thing.

No-one forces anyone to work in a pub, whether it's a smoking or non-smoking premises. They have a CHOICE!

Alcohol is a harmful drug and people go to pubs to consume it. Some people go on like pubs are health clubs. They are pubs, places for adults to go and relax, unwind, abuse their bodies with noxious substances. I'm not really advocating smoking rooms, I think seperate smoking and non-smoking premises would be better. Then people would have a choice. If you don't believe in choice then fair enough.

Why would it be unfeasable? If what people are saying on here is true then many pub customers would like to drink in a smoke-free environment. Fair enough. Smokers would presumably want to keep some 'smoking-permitted' premises. So there would be economic feasability for both types of pubs. It works in some other countries.

None taken.

So you disagree with the idea of people having a choice then Jon? ie Smoking and non-smoking bars. People in pubs are generally poisoning themselves slowly anyway (with alcohol), so your point is ironic.

TRL, not sure from that post if you are pro or anti the smokng ban?

The important point in my scenario is people would have a choice. I think adults in a mature democracy should have a choice Eddy. Surely there's nothing wrong with that.

It would be people's choice to split their group and go to smoking pubs if that's what they wanted Grant. But in reality I don't think that would happen too often. If smokers want to be with their mates then they will go to a non-smoking pub and stand outside in the rain when they want a fag. I'm sure the smokers would be willing to compromise sometimes and go to a non-smoking pub to keep their clean living mates happy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the English government really wanted to bring in this ban did they? They were pressured into it by the non-smoking lobby after coming up with a (not very clever admittedly) compromise about non-smoking food pubs.

But then you take away the non-smokers choice of working in places where smoking is allowed. Anywhere smoking is allowed indoors, a group of people is effectively excluded from that place - simple as that - therefore smokers will have to give up their right to excersise their bad habits and desire to kill themselves in public rooms. If there was a choice of smoking or non smoking places no-one would be 'excluded ' from anywhere. That's like saying you're 'excluded' from Chinese restaurants if you don't like the food. People should have a choice - smoking or non-smoking establishments. Seems like a sensible solution to me. Then smokers could carry on killing themselves happily while all the other people who dont like smoking can go to their nice clean-aired pubs. People could choose to work in a non-smoking pub rather than a smoking one if they so choose. Choice - it's what living in a proper democracy is all about. In a democracy a compromise is better than banning something that is not illegal, IMO. That goes for anything, not just smoking in boozers. Thats not really an 'adult' choice is it, nothing to do with it. Not all pubs bars, restaurants, public buildings are set up to accomodate this 'adult' choice that you suggest so logistically it would be a nightmare. Since the focus seems to be on pubs, very few are going to go through a building process for this idea, considering issues of fire exits, capactity and so on. The segregation issue would also negate the idea of the local boozer somewhat, would a group of friends spend their night in seperate rooms etc depending on whether they smoked. Would most people end up crammed into the smoking room anyway because it was easier to stick with those people. Not smoking affects no-one, it's a non action. Smoking is an action that affects people. In the past it was considered acceptable for that action but since the health issues have been highlighted and alot of people have moved away from that culture i'm happy that this mistake has been recitfied. Smokers are being forced to smoke in a way that doesnt affect other people, the choice is with you whether you want to continue to smoke or not, frankly i couldnt give a shit. Proper ventilation is not a huge problem these days. I've seen pubs with a few air con units that do the job fine. Anyway, I'm not really saying that pubs should be a mixture of smoking and non. I'm saying there should be wider choice of smoking and non-smoking premises. Giving people a choice. As for non-smoking people maybe having to go along with their smoking friends to their bars rather than splitting up - that would be their choice to do so. I'm sure many smokers would also go to non-smoking bars with the majority of non-smoking friends rather than split up. What's the problem with that? I'm not defending smoking as such - I'm defending adult choice for something that is not (yet) an illegal activity.

Michelsen, You say there is no compromise today. I am offering you one with my argument, read back at my posts. I believe adult people should be able to smoke in (some) pubs because they are places where adults go to relax and have a good time, and it is not an illegal practice to smoke tobacco. There should be smoking and non-smoking pubs. That gives grown-up people a choice. What problem do you have with that? I'm guessing you would argue that the majority of people want to go to smoke-free bars, and if that's the case then plenty or premises would be happy to offer this service surely.

I just don't see how adults being given a choice in a supposed democracy can be a bad thing. To the people who say "Where's my choice, I have to breathe in smoke", I'm advocating giving you a choice - to go to a non-smoking pub while the smokers sit in a fug in their own pubs. The comment about smoking in the corner shop thing is a crass point. I'm not advocating freedom to smoke in shops, supermarkets etc. I'm talking about pubs. Someone said "It's coming in and there f**k all we can do about it" is also wrong. This is a democracy and we can do a lot about it if we want to, and I hope we all will when the Government starts curtailing more of our legal freedoms in future. All I am saying is that in a grown-up society a compromise situation is better than blanket bans on activities that are not illegal. I accept that a lot of people don't like smoking and that is a perfectly understandable point of view. I am saying give them a choice of non-smoking bars to go to. I can't see why anyone would object to that very reasonable suggestion in principle. If, as it seems from some of the comments on here, people are enthusiastic about smoke-free premises, then surely some landlords would be happy to oblige. Their cash tills would be bulging with dosh, no?

Ha ha - what a sweeping statement. Total bollocks. I can totally understand why people don't like smoky atmospheres. I just think the adult way forward is choice for all.

If you are allergic to animals you can't be a vet - them's the breaks. If you have asthma you don't apply to work in a smoky pub, you work in the local shop instead. Everyone faces such choices, that's just life. As for the upturn in custom since the ban, it's difficult to tell. Landlords associations insist custom has dropped off here in Scotland, but the Government says it''s stayed the same. Depends who you believe.

The health aspect wasn't why I made the analogy. Your claim that people are "excluded" was what I was challenging. No-one is excluded from pubs except under-18s. Not many landlords appear to have made that choice, so I suppose they must have good reasons for that. Maybe their staff and customers haven't been clamouring for it.