Jon Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? Trade. Quite simply, a blanket ban was the most sensible and most easily workable approach. People aren't stopped from smoking Sir. Just inflicting it on other (non-willing passive smokers) pub or bar patrons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soprano Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? They probably wouldn't have been allowed to as it would have been seen to be discrimative. It's a bit like saying I like a good punch up after a few pints so if you don't like it go somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 discrimative. Discriminatory? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? They probably wouldn't have been allowed to as it would have been seen to be discrimative. It's a bit like saying I like a good punch up after a few pints so if you don't like it go somewhere else. They have dresscodes though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? Trade. Quite simply, a blanket ban was the most sensible and most easily workable approach. People aren't stopped from smoking Sir. Just inflicting it on other (non-willing passive smokers) pub or bar patrons. Hmm doesn´t sound like it was ever a big problem then? If hardly any non-smokers would pick health above money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soprano Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 discrimative. Discriminatory? :winkold: Thank you sir. It's a good job there are no rules about illiterates posting on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? Trade. Quite simply, a blanket ban was the most sensible and most easily workable approach. People aren't stopped from smoking Sir. Just inflicting it on other (non-willing passive smokers) pub or bar patrons. Hmm doesn´t sound like it was ever a big problem then? If hardly any non-smokers would pick health above money. Not sure what you mean. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick fella. Why would a bar or pub ban smokers unilaterally when the others weren't? Would shoot themselves in the foot, surely? yeah, some people would like it, and may go to that bar where they know there will be no smokers. But it could/would put lots of others off. If you had a group of say 5 people and 2 were smokers, then that bar would be out. That is why the blanket ban is working. People can still go to a pub or bar and smoke, just not inside. Works well, IMO. It also gets around the problem of bar staff who don't smoke having to work in a polluted, smokey environment. Not any longer ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? They probably wouldn't have been allowed to as it would have been seen to be discrimative. It's a bit like saying I like a good punch up after a few pints so if you don't like it go somewhere else. They have dresscodes though? AFAIK, a dresscode never gave anybody 2nd hand lung or throat cancer. EDIT: what you are therefore striving for is a form of segregation of society, into smokers and non smokers, who each have their own pubs and bars they can go in. It's an option, but not one a decent society should surely seek. Plus, you would have to discriminate about who you could employ in a smokers bar, to be only smoking or smking friendly staff. And also with any entertainment, sanme thing. I think we're much better where we are now, TBH> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevMur Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Plus everyone knows where they stand. Outside, if you want to have a fag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Plus everyone knows where they stand. Outside, if you want to have a fag. although in the very nice bars I frequent, outdoor seatage whilst smoking is also an option. :winkold: Patio heaters and umbrellas/canopies FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 The ban was brought in because staff members should not have to put down that they don't mind inhaling second hand smoke for their entire 8 hour shift in order to get a job. It was not brought in because it made non smokers happy (though that is a bonus!), it was not brought in because there were not enough non smoking pubs about. It was brought in because no staff member should have to put up with it every single day of their job (no matter what job you do). There is no chance of it being repealed for that reason also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 What stopped non-smokers from making a non-smoker bar before the ban? They probably wouldn't have been allowed to as it would have been seen to be discrimative. It's a bit like saying I like a good punch up after a few pints so if you don't like it go somewhere else. They have dresscodes though? AFAIK, a dresscode never gave anybody 2nd hand lung or throat cancer. Think you deliberately misunderstood where I was going with the dresscode comparison, but thanks for the murderer comment. Could you back it up, with anything but junkscience? They havn´t really seen any decreases in diseases suspected to be caused by 2nd-hand smoke. Ah yeah silly me. That is because all the smokers are now smoking more at home, slaughtering their neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Fantastic that I can go out for a drink without coming home with my clothes reeking of smoke. By all means if people want to smoke, then go outside and inhale to your hearts content. Those of us who are not addicted to Nicotine couldn't be happier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 16, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2010 I hate the pub outdoor smoking areas. You always have to push past a bunch of coughing addicts, through clouds of stinking smoke, and piles of fag ends to get in and out of a pub nowadays. Even worse are what used to be nice beer gardens in country pubs - now off-limits to non-smokers as they are monopolised by the self-poisoners. I'd bring in a "no smoking within 200 metres of a building" rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 I'd bring in a "no smoking within 200 metres of a building" rule. California has a rule about not being allowed to smoke in a public place anywhere, indoors or outdoors, and Sydney is considering a similar move. I don't think it would catch on in Europe quite so easily though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 16, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2010 I'd bring in a "no smoking within 200 metres of a building" rule. California has a rule about not being allowed to smoke in a public place anywhere, indoors or outdoors, and Sydney is considering a similar move. I don't think it would catch on in Europe quite so easily though...Well I didn't think the ban would catch on at all in the first place. I was sure there would be mass disobedience, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted December 16, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted December 16, 2010 I smoke and i have really enjoyed the smoking ban in clubs and restaurants.... Though in pubs, i think it should be the owners choice, and only places which do not sell food have the choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMilnereatsnails Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 I'm a smoker and do not mind having to go outdoors to have a cig. Since the ban I have found that I cannot stand in a room where people smoke anymore as it makes me feel physically sick (my local has the odd lock-in and the ashtrays come out). Strange really as before the ban I could spend a night in the pub and smoke away for hours and not think of it. I actully feel a bit queasy now thinking aboout indoor cigarette smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Haha, reminds me of an incident about 20 years ago...some cocky little **** was smoking in McDonalds in Brum, upstairs where it was no smoking. I had my sprogs with me and was not amused . I "encouraged" him to leave and he did :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted December 17, 2010 Share Posted December 17, 2010 "Encouraged" with a mobile phone and possibly the threat of "ramming it up his rectum"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts