Smoking ban.

[El Zen]

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?

I actually don't think peterms' idea of trying it out after a few years of a complete ban is too bad. Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

[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.

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.

Segregation in office canteens and such like has existed for many years, there was one at my place of work and it never really worked too well. Could it be made to work? Probably, but why bother, when a complete ban will do more to help people kick the habit. I'm afraid this is one of the few areas where I quite rightly think that 'choice' as you put it should be removed because it may help people, like me, break the addiction. So I'm all for it.

[Gringo]

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.

It is a bit out of context but may lose something in the translation so I'll give you that one. What I am saying is there also a lot of other things causing lung cancer, yet the cancer research charities spend more money on campaigning against smoking than they do on researching what is causing the increased incidence relative to the decrease in smokers.

If you smoke there is a statistically confident causal link to say that your chances of lung cancer will increase. So if smoking is reducing and lung cancer is not decreasing along similar lines, then something else is picking up the slack in the figures,

[dundeevilla]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

[Gringo]

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?

I actually don't think peterms' idea of trying it out after a few years of a complete ban is too bad. Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

UK legislation doesn't get repealed - it would never happen - it's an imaginary carrot with zero substance.

[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.

Segregation in office canteens and such like has existed for many years, there was one at my place of work and it never really worked too well. Could it be made to work? Probably, but why bother, when a complete ban will do more to help people kick the habit. I'm afraid this is one of the few areas where I quite rightly think that 'choice' as you put it should be removed because it may help people, like me, break the addiction. So I'm all for it.

Have your canteens. Now can we have our pubs and restaurants back where we can enjoy what we want, and there's a nice big sign saying "WARNING - entering may cause your shirt not to smell nice". And you can have your pubs and compare the importance of lemon freshness.

[Gringo]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

[Risso]

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

Of all thhe ridiculous arguments you've come up with, that's probably the worst yet. Why should people have to avoid a huge employer like the hospitality industry because of the disgusting, selfish habit that smokers inflict on everybody?

For lots of working people, a job in a bar isn't a matter of choice, it's the only job they can get. How far up your own arse do you have to be to say "well they don't HAVE to work there?" Some people don't have the personal circumstances to be quite as choosy.

[Risso]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Such a childish argument, I expected better.

[Bazdavies79]

Have your canteens. Now can we have our pubs and restaurants back where we can enjoy what we want,

Well, all due respect, but their not your pubs and restaurants, their public places.

[El Zen]

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?

I know a fair amount of smokers who embrace the ban, so I'm not just taking this from polls you know. My great grandfather smoked a good fourty a day, lost a leg to it, and I know he'd support it.

You say I don't empathise with you Gringo, and as a reply to that statement I'm going to make a comparison that may be interpreted as offensive and rude but forgive me it was the best I could come up with: From time to time a work in the after school program at the local elementary. I mostly deal with ten year olds, and from time to time they want to do something they I don't think is very okay, e.g. throw rocks at other children. Now, I have to tell them that they can't do that, even if they really really want to. Does that mean that I'm not empathic to kids?

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.

Please, go ahead and name them. I don't know what this big stick you refer to all the time is, by the way. All I've said so far is that smoking is bad for you and people around you, and you shouldn't be allowed to puff smoke in a strangers face if said strangers doesn't want to.

[Gringo]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Such a childish argument, I expected better.

There is plenty of other arguments there - I would have expected you to pick a better one to miss the point on.

In a market with smoking and non-smoking establishments there will be a number of jobs in each environment. It is likely that a lof of the lemon fresh crowd will opt out of working in the smoking environments, thus causing workers to be a more scarce resource, thus pushing up the price of the labour and thus compensating the workers for suffering the increased risk.

If you look at the value of coal miners wages in comparison with similar industries you will find that the those wages have decreased (in relative terms) as the number of casualties in the coal mining industry has fallen. Lower risk, lower compensation.

Is that a bit easier for you?

[El Zen]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

Like I said, we covered it already. We don't agree, and I certainly think it is unfair to rule out a fairly big chunk of a trade for a fairly large group of people because of some people's bad habits.

[Gringo]

Have your canteens. Now can we have our pubs and restaurants back where we can enjoy what we want,

Well, all due respect, but their not your pubs and restaurants, their public places.

Nope - they are private establishments.

50% of regular pub goers smoke. You have yours, we'll have ours and we'd all be happy.

[djdabush]

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Compensated in what way exactly?

[Gringo]

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.

Please, go ahead and name them. I don't know what this big stick you refer to all the time is, by the way. All I've said so far is that smoking is bad for you and people around you, and you shouldn't be allowed to puff smoke in a strangers face if said strangers doesn't want to.

I think the example of the spanish legislation has been mentioned a fair number of times already. A fair equible solution liked by non-smokers.

The big stick is the authoritarian state dictating what happens on private premises.

[El Zen]

Still, there is the question of the people having to work in an environment full of cigarette smoke, which is a question I feel we've covered well enough already.

With respect, this is a non-argument. If people don't like smoky atmospheres then they won't apply to work in a smoky pub. It would be their choice to work there if they so wished.

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Hopefully in the future, we'll have cleaner energy sources than coal, so in a way the bit in bold is true. Anyway, you can't compare coal mining to working in public places such as pubs and restaurants.

Coal mining has been an industial necessity for centuries. How smoking indoors is a necessity, I sure can't see.

[dundeevilla]

Of all thhe ridiculous arguments you've come up with, that's probably the worst yet. Why should people have to avoid a huge employer like the hospitality industry because of the disgusting, selfish habit that smokers inflict on everybody?

For lots of working people, a job in a bar isn't a matter of choice, it's the only job they can get. How far up your own arse do you have to be to say "well they don't HAVE to work there?" Some people don't have the personal circumstances to be quite as choosy.

If there were non-smoking AND smoking pubs (which are workable, it works in Spain) which I have been advocating for the last 20 pages (but people seem to be ignoring because they don't have a credible argument against democratic choice), then people would have the choice to work in either environment, smoking or non-smoking.

This would not exclude anyone from taking up a job in the hospitality industry, whatever their reasons or motivations for doing so. Nothing ridiculous in that argument as far as I can see. In fact it's a very adult and reasonable solution to the smoking in pubs issue IMO.

[Gringo]

And people who are willing to take the risk will end up getting compensated for that risk. Working in a cola mine is dangerous and people get compensated for the risk. BAN COAL MINING NOW.

Compensated in what way exactly?

In a market with smoking and non-smoking establishments there will be a number of jobs in each environment. It is likely that a lof of the lemon fresh crowd will opt out of working in the smoking environments, thus causing workers to be a more scarce resource, thus pushing up the price of the labour and thus compensating the workers for suffering the increased risk.

If you look at the value of coal miners wages in comparison with similar industries you will find that the those wages have decreased (in relative terms) as the number of casualties in the coal mining industry has fallen. Lower risk, lower compensation.

[Bazdavies79]

Nope - they are private establishments.

Your talking about private clubs, right?

50% of regular pub goers smoke. You have yours, we'll have ours and we'd all be happy.

50%, right. I'm sure you'll find a source for that but I still wont believe it.