jimmygreaves Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Jimmy normally I agree with nearly 100% of what you say but to say that smoke does not affect others is just wrong mate Smoke probably does affect others (health) but unless it can be proved scientifically then it's nothing more than an unpleasant inconvenience and as such it shouldn't be banned. It's a fine line yes but are they looking at banning farting in public places. I'm a non-smoker so you'd think I'd be in favour of a ban but not this way. If they want to bad smoking in public places for health reasons then they should ban cigarettes in the publics interest. Any other way is hypocritcal. Not really, it wasnt this government - or any government in this culture or with the knowledge of the damage they do - who made the decision to allow smoking. So taking action isnt actually hypocritical. There are many things such as alcohol, fast food that are very bad for your health but will still remain legal, and rightly so. This is a giant leap towards discouraging smoking as many people who do smoke either started, or mainly get through the bulk of their smoking, socially. The full effects may take several years, even decades to filter through but it's the right choice imo. A straight ban on cigarettes would cause uproar, all those people who are addicted and suddenly cut off....just not feasible, i mean look at some of the protests on this thread already about infringing on rights and choice. Needs to be a culture change first. If this ban is about health reasons then should ban cigarettes full stop. Yes there would be uproar but it would be excused by the government for being socially responsible. It's illegal to drive without a seatbelt for "health" reasons - quite right. It's illegal to drink and drive (over a limit) for "health" reasons - quite right. They're going to bad smoking in public for "health" reasons........ but the adverse health effects have not been proved.... so it can't be banned for "health" reasons. You can't ban something because it's a bit smelly and without the science to back it up that's all it is. Passive smoking is at this point a myth and as such a ban is a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Interesting debate, I've only read the first 6 pages and even as a 20 a day man I agree with the majority of the non smokers. It's a vile habit and aside from the health risks if it helps non-smokers to feel more comfortable in my company I'm all for it. I don't want to feel like I'm ruining someones meal, making their clothes stink or contributing to their childs asthma problems. But unfortunately, like most smokers I just can't help myself. After a few pints or a nice meal I simply MUST have a cigarette. If from now on I have to go outside to do so then so be it. Infact, I may make this one I'm smoking my last. Can't see the point in it anymore. Maybe this ban just saved my life........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 If this ban is about health reasons then should ban cigarettes full stop. Yes there would be uproar but it would be excused by the government for being socially responsible. You think? I'd say it isn't economically viable anyway, so the point is mute. Passive smoking is at this point a myth 15 years ago people were debating whether smoking caused cancer. Commen sense suggested it did, but scientificaly it was still a myth. Common sense would now suggest that standing in a room full of smoke can only have an adverse effect on your health, even if the evidence isn't quite in place. Out of interest, what are the 'official' reasons given for the smoking ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 If this ban is about health reasons then should ban cigarettes full stop. Yes there would be uproar but it would be excused by the government for being socially responsible. You think? I'd say it isn't economically viable anyway, so the point is mute. What are the 'official' reasons given for the smoking ban? passive smoking causes cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 passive smoking causes cancer? I'd say even the risk that this is true should be taken very seriously indeed. Fair play to the government for being proactive rather than reactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World_Domination Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Better or worse ? Whats happened to your local ? Seems to be a lot of pubs shut down and being smoke free and boarded up don't really help anyone, does it ? or has it been given a new lease of life. Recently read that, Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) are now lobbing for a ban on smoking in cars. Also talk of street bans to help against littering ( despite a fine system already in place ). Last month \/ German smoking ban declared unconstitutional By David Snook The smoking regulations in Germany, which were likely to decimate the country's 75,000 AWP machines located in pubs, has been declared unconstitutional in two key Länder, or states. There is now a 15-month gap during which the lawmakers must revise the regulations. The German Federal Constitutional Court on July 30 decided that some provisions of the smoking regulations were unconstitutional in Baden-Württemberg and Berlin. The landmark decision will now be automatically applied to the rest of Germany's 17 Länder. The court had another 13 complaints under the constitutional law to consider and, following the July 30 decision, these can now be decided without hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Infact, I may make this one I'm smoking my last. Can't see the point in it anymore. Maybe this ban just saved my life........ So...........did ye quit? Or still on the weed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I think pubs are miles better without smoke and that comes from someone who likes the odd fag ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Infact, I may make this one I'm smoking my last. Can't see the point in it anymore. Maybe this ban just saved my life........ So...........did ye quit? Or still on the weed? Nah, still smoke ciggies like a trooper. Haven't smoked weed regularly for about 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I think pubs are miles better without smoke and that comes from someone who likes the odd fag ... I agree. I remember when my dad had the pub, we had the Hatton/Mayweather fight on 'after hours'. Pub was packed to the rafters and it seemed like everyone was a smoker. It hurt my eyes and we couldn't get rid of the smell for days. I don't mind standing outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Gringo will no doubt post something that will disprove my next comment but for me pubs are closing because it is so damm expensive now when compared to supermarkets, equalise the prices and that helps. a lot more people now want more than what the basic pub can offer, the pubs that moved on are the successful ones smoking was a factor for some people but I think a lot of pubs were on the edge. Anyoe from our area knows the Trees/Schofields closed some months ago. It had been there for years/decades but whenever I went in it was never full and was struggling for a long while. The other two pubs on the estate are doing fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Gringo will no doubt post something that will disprove my next comment but for me pubs are closing because it is so damm expensive now when compared to supermarkets, equalise the prices and that helps. Quite. Pint of Strongbow in The Holte End - over £3 8 pack of Strongbow today in Somerfield - £3.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 quite Rob, pint of Carling at Barton's - £2.50 went to Asda today and 4 cans - £2.30 something totally wrong there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 25, 2008 Moderator Share Posted October 25, 2008 quite Rob, pint of Carling at Barton's - £2.50 went to Asda today and 4 cans - £2.30 something totally wrong there No there's not, when you go to a licenced premises, you aren't just paying for the liquid you are drinking, you are paying someone to serve you, you are paying for the bogs to be cleaned, you are paying for the odd numpty who drops a glass, you are paying for the heating and the lighting etc etc And most of us are paying for somewhere to get away from the wife for a few hours EDIT: not only that people think the pubs are getting the product cheaper than the supermarkets when in fact because they aren't buying in anywhere near the volume the supermarkets are, then their actual unit cost is much higher too. It's partly a byproduct of the monopolies and mergers commission thing that Labour made all the breweries sell off their pubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 actually Bicks that the Tories with the Tied pubs wasn't it ? in many ways it has helped miles more pubs now serve real ale for example than 10 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted October 25, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted October 25, 2008 And most of us are paying for somewhere to get away from the wife for a few hours Or even somewhere for us to meet a potential wife (not that I'm desperate or anything :oops:). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 25, 2008 Moderator Share Posted October 25, 2008 actually Bicks that the Tories with the Tied pubs wasn't it ? in many ways it has helped miles more pubs now serve real ale for example than 10 years ago Not sure Ian (Same horse different jockey afaic) and yes it has helped in that aspect but it has also forced prices in pubs up and supermarkets have drive the price they buy down at the same time But here's a question, how many large pub chains were there? and how many large supermarket chains are there now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 large supermarkets what 4/5 but even the Nisa's of the world and even local offies offer low prices pub chains I think are also 4/5 but we still have large regionals like Marston's Camra are actually calling for the large pub chains to be broken up as they are more interested in property prices rather than what they sell, hence why a lot of successful pubs but those covering a large space were sold off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 25, 2008 Moderator Share Posted October 25, 2008 Camra are actually calling for the large pub chains to be broken up as they are more interested in property prices rather than what they sell, hence why a lot of successful pubs but those covering a large space were sold off So they want Wetherspoons to be broken up? The cheapest pubs with the largest frontages and also the largest chain that also sells real ale and has guest beers How on earth did they come to that conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Bicks, Weatherspoons are small, some 500 pub or so, the biggies like Enterprise number around 5k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts