Smoking ban.

[dundeevilla]

Yes you would. Anyone with asthma or other significant allergies would struggle to work in an establishment where smoking was allowed. And your anaology with not liking chinese food isn't a very good one, as noone's health would suffer from serving food they don't like the taste of.

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.

People could choose to work in a non-smoking pub rather than a smoking one if they so choose

So do tell me - how many non-smoking pubs are there now, before the ban?

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.

[El Zen]

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.

Asthma, allergies etc? If you suffer from asthma, you can not work in a room full of cigarette smoke. Effectively, you are excluded from any room full of smoke.

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'll repeat gladly - people would be surprised. In Norway, most pubs and bars have experienced an increase in customers since the ban.

[dundeevilla]

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.

[fergie69]

Smokers will never be really bothered about other people. The vast majority smoke in front of their kids so it stands to reason that they dont give a shit about anyone else

[dundeevilla]

Smokers will never be really bothered about other people. The vast majority smoke in front of their kids so it stands to reason that they dont give a shit about anyone else

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.

[fergie69]

Where is my choice ? Stay and put up with second hand smoke or go home ?

[El Zen]

If you are allergic to animals you can't be a vet.

Yes you can, actually, just take the necessary precatuions and you'll most likely be fine. What sort of precautions do you suggest people take in smoky pubs? Remember, you have to stay customer-friendly so wearing a mask isn't really an alternative.

you work in the local shop instead

But surely, people should have the right to smoke in the local shop as well if we're to follow your ideology of "freedom of choice"?

[mjmooney]

All the nonsense about pubs having to close because of loss of custom has been shown to be untrue

On 1st July I am planning to spend an evening on the lash in my nearest local. And I intend to explain to the landlord that I will be doing so on a regular basis - indeed, that I would have been doing so for years had it not been such a stinking smokebox.

Might give him food for thought.

My God, the avatar makes sense now !!

Yep. Top man, Victor.

[saturdaygig]

..and another thing, how's it gonna work in the academy when no-one can have a spliff? I wonder if we could make draw exempt from this law, since two wrongs make a right.

[Risso]

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!

[mike273]

I can totally understand why people don't like smoky atmospheres. I just think the adult way forward is choice for all.

Choice for all. I like it.

Thing is, that by default to me means that the ban makes sense. Pubs are smoke-free, yet smokers can still go outside and light up. Freedom of choice for all. Those who want to avoid smoke can, those who want to do so still can.

Perfection.

[peterms]

As a none smoker, the thing that pisses me off about other none smokers (I used to use ciggies), is that they moan about people inside and say go outside, when the sun comes out and the smokers are outside, the none smokers whinge about them being outside.

Well of course.

The point is not whether smokers are inside or outside, but whether they impose their smoke on other people. Similarly, I have no problem with people shooting up, but would complain if they leave their needles where I might injure myself on them.

If they were smoking inside a pub, and doing so in a hermetically sealed bag or a wet suit or something, I really wouldn't care. That's their choice, that's their freedom.

If I step outside into a cloud of noxious gas given off by smokers huddled round the door, or can't sit in a beer garden without having their smoke drifting all over me, I don't like it and wish they would go somewhere very far away.

That's just common sense, isn't it?

To use the farting analogy that several people have quoted, I think it's commonly acknowledged that farting in a lift is a pretty antisocial thing to do. Smoking in enclosed premises where other people are present is very similar in respect of the effect and the inability of other people to avoid it without physically removing themselves from the premises.

Actually, let's cut out the crap about freedom and all the other fine principles. Smokers who oppose the ban really don't give a flying **** about anyone else and in particular other people's freedoms, and that's really all it's about. Since they have (generally) shown themselves unwilling to accommodate other people's needs on a voluntary basis, they clearly need to be compelled to do so.

[nrogers]

As a none smoker, the thing that pisses me off about other none smokers (I used to use ciggies), is that they moan about people inside and say go outside, when the sun comes out and the smokers are outside, the none smokers whinge about them being outside.

Well of course.

The point is not whether smokers are inside or outside, but whether they impose their smoke on other people. Similarly, I have no problem with people shooting up, but would complain if they leave their needles where I might injure myself on them.

The crux of is there are far bigger noxious pollutents outside other ciggie smoke...

They are outside leave 'em be

[dundeevilla]

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?

[El Zen]

I'm not advocating freedom to smoke in shops, supermarkets etc. I'm talking about pubs.

Why? As your argument is purely based on the principle of freedom of choice, why should that freedom be restricted to "fun" places like the pub and bars?

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.

The problem with this argument, is that today there isn't a compromise. You smokers have all the power. I think saying "you can smoke, no problem, just step outside for three minutes so you don't bother the guy next to you" is a pretty fair compromise.

[Jon]

As a none smoker, the thing that pisses me off about other none smokers (I used to use ciggies), is that they moan about people inside and say go outside, when the sun comes out and the smokers are outside, the none smokers whinge about them being outside.

Well of course.

The point is not whether smokers are inside or outside, but whether they impose their smoke on other people. Similarly, I have no problem with people shooting up, but would complain if they leave their needles where I might injure myself on them.

If they were smoking inside a pub, and doing so in a hermetically sealed bag or a wet suit or something, I really wouldn't care. That's their choice, that's their freedom.

If I step outside into a cloud of noxious gas given off by smokers huddled round the door, or can't sit in a beer garden without having their smoke drifting all over me, I don't like it and wish they would go somewhere very far away.

That's just common sense, isn't it?

To use the farting analogy that several people have quoted, I think it's commonly acknowledged that farting in a lift is a pretty antisocial thing to do. Smoking in enclosed premises where other people are present is very similar in respect of the effect and the inability of other people to avoid it without physically removing themselves from the premises.

Actually, let's cut out the crap about freedom and all the other fine principles. Smokers who oppose the ban really don't give a flying **** about anyone else and in particular other people's freedoms, and that's really all it's about. Since they have (generally) shown themselves unwilling to accommodate other people's needs on a voluntary basis, they clearly need to be compelled to do so.

post of the thread Peter, amongst several worthy contenders.

agree with every word.

TBH even amonst smokers I know i've found some support for this, which indicates to me i hang about with people who have some sort of sicla conscience.

I lose a lot of respect for those that argue they should be able simply to do what they like, where they like, with zero regard for the impacts they are having on others.

The Govt is often accused of being a"Nanny". I think in this instance (and some others) they are very right to implement this law, for the benefit of the general populace ....

[dundeevilla]

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.

[Grant(aka_eddy)]

I would have thought the adult way to sort this out would be to have smoking and no smoking rooms in pubs, which are totally seperate with modern ventilation systems. And smoking and non smoking pubs. ie: Give people a choice.

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.

In terms of seperate premises, well why should there be. Why should i have to walk twice as far to one pub, why should groups get split up or have to spend the night at the venue they didnt want to, why should businesses lose trade. Sorry but i find the idea ludicrous, the practicalities and reality of that scenario are entirely unfeasible.

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, most i know are using it as an incentive to give up a habit they want to lose.

Oh and fair play to the government for bringing in something that will lose them revenue. Ok they'll probably have to make it another way but still, it wasn't the easy option for them.

[dundeevilla]

I would have thought the adult way to sort this out would be to have smoking and no smoking rooms in pubs, which are totally seperate with modern ventilation systems. And smoking and non smoking pubs. ie: Give people a choice.

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.

[Grant(aka_eddy)]

Sorry Dundee, i'd edited my post as i quoted the wrong text....should be a bit more relevant to the points you're making and possibly a bit less early morning grumpy!!!