Smoking ban.

[Gringo]

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.

I dare say they haven't, but then, no landlord in his right mind is going to be the first to experiment with a smoking ban and risk going out of business. With a total ban, it's a level playing field for everybody.

Anyway, as Nayson said before, all this arguing is purely academic.

It's coming in, AND THERE'S **** ALL YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See that's the childish authoritarian in you bursting out.

Lots of pubs tried non-smoking. They lost money. So some regulation was required. An outright ban wasn't.

And there's plenty we can do. Bye bye, that's another big chunk of tax revenue gone somewhere else.

[djdabush]

Number of smokers consistently falling for 40 years. Incidence of lung cancer staying roughly the same. So the stick bearers make up something called smoke related diseases - things which may be caused by smoking but are also likely to be caused by other environmental factors. But bugger the research and working out whats going wrong, we've got a stick - let's hit someone.

Really, has the rate of smoking gone consistently down in women and men? Are men and women both equally likely to be affected by cancer? Are smoking related diseases made up or are there numerous afflictions which smoking increases the likelihood of? If passive smoking has been disproved by research why is it then that both the World Health Organisation and the British Medical Association have both presented evidence to the contrary?

[Gringo]

Had it in Norway for a few years. Lots of complaints initially but now a considerable majority seem to accept the fact that a smoking ban is a good thing.

Indeed when liberties are so easily given up, people soon forget they had them

Nah, but you see smokers embrace the ban as well. I don't think people are all too concerned about "liberties" such as being allowed to puff cigarette smoke in some strangers face - I think they are more concerned about a decent indoor climate and a compromise that suits all parts fairly well.

Basing the argument on the UK, tobacco brings in 5 times as much tax as the NHS spends on "smoking related" diseases

Okay, maybe I'm wrong on that one, I don't know. But still, what are you saying? People should smoke more? Come on...

Of course - as a non-smoker you are well placed to judge the emotion of smokers - and whats more we can all go outside and socialise - whoopee - great for people who go and drink and have a fag and read a book or a paper - pop outside, take all your belongings with you, lose your seat or risk having everything robbed. Great for the old and infirm who have to wobble out of the bar. Marginalising the weakest minorities is rarely the right answer.

[Gringo]

Number of smokers consistently falling for 40 years. Incidence of lung cancer staying roughly the same. So the stick bearers make up something called smoke related diseases - things which may be caused by smoking but are also likely to be caused by other environmental factors. But bugger the research and working out whats going wrong, we've got a stick - let's hit someone.

Really, has the rate of smoking gone consistently down in women and men? Are men and women both equally likely to be affected by cancer? Are smoking related diseases made up or are there numerous afflictions which smoking increases the likelihood of? If passive smoking has been disproved by research why is it then that both the World Health Organisation and the British Medical Association have both presented evidence to the contrary?

And that evidence was so strong and un-rebutted that it was used by the govt? Nope not really was it. WHO and BMA have both presented some evidence of a causal link, which has been rebutted as been poor analysis or weak sampling. So instead of working harder on the research they ignored the criticism and just carried on performing extrapolations of their previously discredited evidence. Keep on shouting loud and long enough and the gullible majority will listen eventually.

The last lot of evidence presented on here all referenced each other and the original discredited evidence. It doesn't stand up to peer-review and critical analysis.

[Gringo]

Democracy? As somebody has already said , the party in power had this in their manifesto, and they got voted in.

I don't think they did. They didn't even support it as a policy the morning that they voted the legislation in. They had a manifesto pledge for one thing and implemented another.

Not really democracy in action now is it. But symbolic of the tin pot representation of democracy that the people seem content with.

[El Zen]

Of course - as a non-smoker you are well placed to judge the emotion of smokers - and whats more we can all go outside and socialise - whoopee - great for people who go and drink and have a fag and read a book or a paper - pop outside, take all your belongings with you, lose your seat or risk having everything robbed. Great for the old and infirm who have to wobble out of the bar. Marginalising the weakest minorities is rarely the right answer.

Yes, of course, my comment about smokers embracing the ban is obviously me creating stories because of my horrbile anti-smoking bias :roll:

About the people who risk losing their seat, forgive but I really can't make myself feel too sorry for them. First of all, asking someone if they'd kindly save your seat is hardly that much trouble. Second of all - tough luck, you choose to smoke, deal with it.

As for the "what about the elderly?"-piece of cheapish rhetoric, I honestly feel that if they are capable of finding their way down to their local then I think they won't suffer tremedously if they have to walk five yards and stand outside for three minutes.

[El Zen]

BTW, trying to question the health risks connected to smoking cigarettes is quite frankly a bit laughable. No offense, Gringo, but it really is.

[Gringo]

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.

I think in principle the idea of separate smoking premises sounds reasonable. Personally, I'd rather have the smokers shut away in premises of their own, than have them standing in a smoky huddle around the doorway or monopolising the outside seats.

If we were starting from a level playing field, it might work.

But we're not. We're starting from a position where pubs see smoking as the status quo, where they have financial incentives to sell fags, where landlords are fearful that if they introduce a no-smoking rule by choice, they will lose some customers who they know and speak to, with the uncertain prospect of other, as yet unknown people replacing them.

Unlike somewhere like Spain for example where smoking is much more prevalant than over here.

In fact the last antitobaccofascist thread was started by someone who had just come back from spain and commented on how well the ban was working. As a non smoker that person wasn't even aware that there wasn't a ban, but merely a sensible segregation of premises.

See even the non-smokers like the spanish implementation.

But you've got this stick and you're so eager to use it.....

[Gringo]

BTW, trying to question the health risks connected to smoking cigarettes is quite frankly a bit laughable. No offense, Gringo, but it really is.

The question is about passive smoking and if you've got this far in the thread and not worked out the difference then you're comment is quite laughable really.

[Bazdavies79]

I smoke and I embrace the ban. It's fair IMO that people should not have to suffer because of my disgusting habit. Hopefully it will help me and others like me give up.

[Gringo]

Of course - as a non-smoker you are well placed to judge the emotion of smokers - and whats more we can all go outside and socialise - whoopee - great for people who go and drink and have a fag and read a book or a paper - pop outside, take all your belongings with you, lose your seat or risk having everything robbed. Great for the old and infirm who have to wobble out of the bar. Marginalising the weakest minorities is rarely the right answer.

Yes, of course, my comment about smokers embracing the ban is obviously me creating stories because of my horrbile anti-smoking bias :roll:

About the people who risk losing their seat, forgive but I really can't make myself feel too sorry for them. First of all, asking someone if they'd kindly save your seat is hardly that much trouble. Second of all - tough luck, you choose to smoke, deal with it.

As for the "what about the elderly?"-piece of cheapish rhetoric, I honestly feel that if they are capable of finding their way down to their local then I think they won't suffer tremedously if they have to walk five yards and stand outside for three minutes.

Again, your abiloity to empathise with groups of which you are not a part is quite outstanding. Even been to a working mans club in the english suburbs, the age of the clientele, the british legions with plenty of infirm people whose only socialisation is the occassional chat over a pint and a fag who are now forced to buy their cans from tescos and sit at home. Carry on using that stick and punish the minorities for being different.

[El Zen]

BTW, trying to question the health risks connected to smoking cigarettes is quite frankly a bit laughable. No offense, Gringo, but it really is.

The question is about passive smoking and if you've got this far in the thread and not worked out the difference then you're comment is quite laughable really.

Oh really, you haven't earlier in the thread questioned the link between lung cancer and smoking cigarettes using somewhat flawed statistics? My bad, then.

[Gringo]

I smoke and I embrace the ban. It's fair IMO that people should not have to suffer because of my disgusting habit. Hopefully it will help me and others like me give up.

Carry on, and I hope you are happy and successful with your CHOICE.

[Bazdavies79]

Carry on, and I hope you are happy and successful with your CHOICE.

It shouldn't be left to choice if people like, (I'm guessing you) refuse to stop, when people's health is at stake. Oh but I forgot passive smoking is a myth, even though I myself know 3 people who suffer from being in smoky rooms.

[Gringo]

BTW, trying to question the health risks connected to smoking cigarettes is quite frankly a bit laughable. No offense, Gringo, but it really is.

The question is about passive smoking and if you've got this far in the thread and not worked out the difference then you're comment is quite laughable really.

Oh really, you haven't earlier in the thread questioned the link between lung cancer and smoking cigarettes using somewhat flawed statistics? My bad, then.

Nope don't think I have, but feel free to quote the relevant portion.

Not that the argument is relevant when the discussion this is based around is the fact that this flawed legislation was implemented on the unsupported claims that "passive smoking kills billions of people every day" © Roy castle foundation*

*I might have made that bit up - but they started it

[Gringo]

Carry on, and I hope you are happy and successful with your CHOICE.

It shouldn't be left to choice if people like, (I'm guessing you) refuse to stop, when people's health is at stake. Oh but I forgot passive smoking is a myth, even though I myself know 3 people who suffer from being in smoky rooms.

I don't want shirt sniffers breathing in my smoke - I want segregation - a just and fair to all solution. Why would anyone oppose it? It works in Spain.

The argument is whether passive smoking kills billions of people every hour - not whether smoke aggravates asthma.

[El Zen]

Again, your abiloity to empathise with groups of which you are not a part is quite outstanding. Even been to a working mans club in the english suburbs, the age of the clientele, the british legions with plenty of infirm people whose only socialisation is the occassional chat over a pint and a fag who are now forced to buy their cans from tescos and sit at home. Carry on using that stick and punish the minorities for being different.

No, they are not. And if they are not capable of stepping outside for three minutes, how are they capable getting to the club in the first place?

And don't try to question my empathy, Gringo, I thought you knew my politics better than that but clearly you don't. I just don't feel sorry for people if they have to step outside for three minutes to enjoy what is a fairly self-destructing bad habit - I feel more sorry for the people who have to deal with cigarette smoke without wishing to do so.

[dundeevilla]

I feel more sorry for the people who have to deal with cigarette smoke without wishing to do so.

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?

[El Zen]

BTW, trying to question the health risks connected to smoking cigarettes is quite frankly a bit laughable. No offense, Gringo, but it really is.

The question is about passive smoking and if you've got this far in the thread and not worked out the difference then you're comment is quite laughable really.

Oh really, you haven't earlier in the thread questioned the link between lung cancer and smoking cigarettes using somewhat flawed statistics? My bad, then.

Nope don't think I have, but feel free to quote the relevant portion.

Number of smokers consistently falling for 40 years. Incidence of lung cancer staying roughly the same.

I read this as you questioning the fact that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer significantly. I was only skimming through, so it may have been taken out of context. My apologies if it was.

[Gringo]

Again, your abiloity to empathise with groups of which you are not a part is quite outstanding. Even been to a working mans club in the english suburbs, the age of the clientele, the british legions with plenty of infirm people whose only socialisation is the occassional chat over a pint and a fag who are now forced to buy their cans from tescos and sit at home. Carry on using that stick and punish the minorities for being different.

No, they are not. And if they are not capable of stepping outside for three minutes, how are they capable getting to the club in the first place?

And don't try to question my empathy, Gringo, I thought you knew my politics better than that but clearly you don't. I just don't feel sorry for people if they have to step outside for three minutes to enjoy what is a fairly self-destructing bad habit - I feel more sorry for the people who have to deal with cigarette smoke without wishing to do so.

Hey don't shoot the messenger. You don't smoke, you're not a smoking crip - you don't know how they feel - you read what the press tells you. I'm a smoker - you certainly don't empathise with my feelings. You may feel you empathise with what the MORI polls are telling you. And that's nothing to do with politics unless you think only right wingers disenfranchise minorities?

There are plenty of solutions to segregating smoking and non-smoking outlets, but whilst you've got a big stick you seem to dismiss them and prefer the bish-bosh approach.