Topic ID 2291
The government has today announced that the no smoking ban will come into force on 1st July 2007.
Reply ID 31730
You mean I've got to wait that long, before I can have a crafty pint after work and not have the wife identifying the smoke on my clothes, within a nano second of getting through the front door. ( and yes I do go to the Snug , but they only have one ale)
Reply ID 31731
That's a Sunday. I wonder what happens on the stroke of Midnight on the Saturday night? Might be interesting [:)] Hopefully, they'll make the cut-off time some time into Sunday to avoid any problems.
Reply ID 31735
Was in Glasgow last weekend ,funny to see all the smokers going outside in the rain for a fag . Great to have your clothes not stinking of smoke , roll on July .
Reply ID 31738
quote:At midnight on Saturday we close. No problem!
Originally posted by Ray_by_the_Beane
That's a Sunday. I wonder what happens on the stroke of Midnight on the Saturday night? Might be interesting [:)] Hopefully, they'll make the cut-off time some time into Sunday to avoid any problems.
Reply ID 31739
Drinking banned in the street, smoking banned indoors. Hmmmm?
Reply ID 31752
Hurrah - can't come soon enough for us.
Reply ID 31824
Me neither, we went to the White Horse for their gastronomic tour this night, one woman smoked two ciggies in quick succession... BEFORE... having her meal[:p]...I know there is upstairs, but it has absolutely no atmosphere. Roll on the day when people can stop inflicting this on everyone... (I speak as an ex smoker)
Reply ID 31825
quote:That will work well in the Horse during the Summer. In the Winter the woodburning fire delivers an undeniable odour assault that a kipper would be proud of. Sitting in the presence of a dozen Gitane-tugging geezers would barely have the same effect - tumourous lungs accepted.
Originally posted by wizkid
Me neither, we went to the White Horse for their gastronomic tour this night, one woman smoked two ciggies in quick succession... BEFORE... having her meal[:p]...I know there is upstairs, but it has absolutely no atmosphere. Roll on the day when people can stop inflicting this on everyone... (I speak as an ex smoker)
Reply ID 31907
quote:......which is what we all have to look forward to. I had great trouble passing my local as I walked to my door last night. The door of the bar swung open for a moment and there was that familiar, welcoming aroma of beer and wine, mixed with smoke and the sound of laughter. The end of a era and the start of the kind of sterile bars which California suffers from, populated only by businessmen using laptops.
[i]Originally posted by wizkid...I know there is upstairs, but it has absolutely no atmosphere.
Reply ID 31911
The WH’s upstairs having no atmosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with it being non-smoking – simply there are too many rooms that appear private and sometimes un-welcoming and there is no bar actively worked up there; that’s the problem. I really quite seriously doubt when no smoking comes that bars will all of a sudden become populated by businessmen with laptops. This is not the case currently with the no-smoking areas such as the Snug, upstairs at the WH or the non-smoking bit at Baroosh. I have been to quite a number of pubs/bars on the East Coast of the America and still enjoyed a very lively and pleasant time that still managed to convey the aroma of beer, wine and the sounds of laughter but just without the smell of cigarette smoke. People may not like the smoking ban but if you seriously think bars like the White Horse, Black Horse and the OXT will become bars for sterile California-esque businessmen tapping away on their keyboards then you are quite wrong.
Reply ID 31913
quote:Is there a laughing and beer and wine drinking ban coming in as well? I think you will still find the Craic in Dublin where they have had the smoking ban for over a year now. California and Californians are mostly sterile, full stop. Time to start chewing your fingernails!
Originally posted by shuntquote:......which is what we all have to look forward to. I had great trouble passing my local as I walked to my door last night. The door of the bar swung open for a moment and there was that familiar, welcoming aroma of beer and wine, mixed with smoke and the sound of laughter. The end of a era and the start of the kind of sterile bars which California suffers from, populated only by businessmen using laptops.
[i]Originally posted by wizkid...I know there is upstairs, but it has absolutely no atmosphere.
Reply ID 31914
Am I alone in thinking this another loss of a liberal freedom and another victory for the thought Gestapo that increasingly rule our lives? I have never smoked cigarettes.
Reply ID 31915
Personally I can't wait for the ban to start.
Reply ID 31916
At first I though the same as Carlos, but since having our first child, I find myself slipping out for the odd few beers, rather than staying out all night, which basically means that when I get in I have to change all my clothes and have even resulted to showering to rid the stench. Roll on July 1st.
Reply ID 31917
[/quote] Is there a laughing and beer and wine drinking ban coming in as well? I think you will still find the Craic in Dublin where they have had the smoking ban for over a year now. California and Californians are mostly sterile, full stop. Time to start chewing your fingernails! [/quote] Coming soon, to a pub near you! Will drink escape the PC, health and safety, social sterilisation lobby for ever, or is it next? How long before that becomes socially unacceptable too? The character of Dublin has radically changed over the last year. How much of the substitution of traditional pubs with designer business bars and restuarants is due to the smoking ban and how much is as a result of rapid economic change in that city, is hard to tell. I remember too the lively blues bars of Pasedena, now replaced by supermarkets and auto shops. You can still get a drink in Pasedena; in the bar of the Marriot Hotel where warnings of the health risks of alcohol are clearly displayed in a very off-putting way.
Reply ID 31918
I cannot wait for the ban but then again I am not having a freedom I have now taken away from me. People talk of rights and this is a two-way thing. There are also the rights of those that don’t wish to have their health put in potential peril by someone else exercising their own freedom to smoke in a confined space. Do I not have the right to not have *your* smoke in *my* face. Yes, it is the ‘big brother’ state enforcing something on many unwilling people. However, given smoking is extremely addictive and I think we can all agree potentially lethal perhaps it does take a bit more direct state intervention to make it more ‘troublesome’ for smokers and perhaps increase the number that consider giving up. In addition, an enforced pub ban will more or less completely remove secondary smoking in confined public places. I know that fatty foods and alcohol are also bad for you but me exercising my right to eat a bacon butty and downing a pint next to you in a pub will not potentially affect your health. Ultimately smokers obviously do enjoy it but they all know it can be very bad for you and those around you. This legislation will increase the chance that perhaps your children and theirs will look back at people smoking and think “what on earth did they do that for?!”. Are there smokers that would be happy if their children smoked, some may not mind, but I would suspect most would prefer it if their kids didn’t take it up and I think this helps reduce this chance.
Reply ID 31919
At least California once had the sense to only insist that it was clearly displayed at the door whether a bar was smoking or non-smoking. That way we all have a choice. I agree that encouraging the giving up of smoking is a good thing, as it does kill smokers. There is, however, no evidence of harm from secondary smoking, as was first thought, whereas alcohol definately harms third parties. That, however is not the point. If you want to be apart from smokers, there are non-smoking bars, likewise smokers may choose not to use them. [/quote]
Reply ID 31921
quote:And will not make you stink to high heaven, unless of course they rub the butty all over you, then pour the beer on your head! And you do still have a choice, 2 to be correct 1) Smoke outside 2) Give up Smoking
Originally posted by Avarice
I know that fatty foods and alcohol are also bad for you but me exercising my right to eat a bacon butty and downing a pint next to you in a pub will not potentially affect your health.
Reply ID 31923
You also have a choice of attending a non-smoking bar, as have I. I don't like football or the frequently poor behaviour that accompanies it. Some bars show football. I have the ability to pick another. I wouldn't want it banned, even though it causes far more trouble than raves, which are. If you don't like the smell of smoke, why on earth would you go to a place where smoking is allowed? The number of deaths which have been proven to be as a result of passive smoking worldwide is 0. The number of third party deaths from alcohol consumption? How about we ban alcohol? You then have the same choices as you'd wish on smokers. As for publicans, they now have the choice of running a smoking or non-smoking premises, according to demand. That choice is also being removed.
Reply ID 31924
That’s pretty much the way things are in the UK right now – look how many completely non-smoking bars there are in Hertford (is it just the Snug?). Established smoking bars would not want to rock the boat and become non-smoking and potentially force custom to their competitors. Aha then say the smokers this means their must be a need for a smoking bar and so why should we therefore not have a choice? Mostly because nicotine is addictive and toxic to you and those around you - unfortunately that’s why legislation is needed to essentially twist people’s arms and point them in the general best direction. Re: Secondary Smoke. I’m no scientist but to me this is as they say a no-brainer. I don’t know if there is evidence or not but if we all agree that primary smoking can cause harmful effects. How you can those same people then say they don’t know if then secondary smoking will do anything all. I have in my student youth smoked secondary cannabis smoke (and inhaled) and that had an effect. I just don’t believe the first smoker takes every bad element out of the cigarette smoke and makes it pure using their lungs and therefore safe for everyone else.
Reply ID 31927
quote:It's a matter of concentration.
Originally posted by Avarice I have in my student youth smoked secondary cannabis smoke (and inhaled) and that had an effect. I just don’t believe the first smoker takes every bad element out of the cigarette smoke and makes it pure using their lungs and therefore safe for everyone else.
Reply ID 31928
quote:There are only 2 non smoking Bars in Hertford at present. The Snug and the back bar of the Salisbury. I live in Bengeo and do not wish to hike across town purely for a smoke free couple of pints. I also drink in other smoking pubs in town, as I have done for years, but my point was that since having a child, I find that I now pop out to the local for a couple of quick pints and return home stinking, rather than staying in a pub all night, still returning home stinking, but the wife is not awake to say "you stink" and I am too drunk to notice or care. I did not say that I do not like the smell of smoke, even though that may be the case. So yes correct I have the choice, all be it limited, but that is for now. Personally I dont think it will effect my social circle as the majority of us are fine athletes! [8D]
Originally posted by shunt
You also have a choice of attending a non-smoking bar, as have I. I don't like football or the frequently poor behaviour that accompanies it. Some bars show football. I have the ability to pick another. I wouldn't want it banned, even though it causes far more trouble than raves, which are. If you don't like the smell of smoke, why on earth would you go to a place where smoking is allowed?
Reply ID 31929
quote:Most of the third-party booze related damage is illegal and already recives legislation to try to minimise it. The same is now happening for third-party smoking damage.
Originally posted by shunt
The number of third party deaths from alcohol consumption? How about we ban alcohol? You then have the same choices as you'd wish on smokers.
Reply ID 31930
quote:Love it![:D] Does illustrate my point though. Market forces are only able to support two non-smoking bars. That surprises even me!
Originally posted by Victor Meldrewquote:There are only 2 non smoking Bars in Hertford at present. The Snug and the back bar of the Salisbury. I live in Bengeo and do not wish to hike across town purely for a smoke free couple of pints. I also drink in other smoking pubs in town, as I have done for years, but my point was that since having a child, I find that I now pop out to the local for a couple of quick pints and return home stinking, rather than staying in a pub all night, still returning home stinking, but the wife is not awake to say "you stink" and I am too drunk to notice or care. I did not say that I do not like the smell of smoke, even though that may be the case. So yes correct I have the choice, all be it limited, but that is for now. Personally I dont think it will effect my social circle as the majority of us are fine athletes! [8D]
Originally posted by shunt
You also have a choice of attending a non-smoking bar, as have I. I don't like football or the frequently poor behaviour that accompanies it. Some bars show football. I have the ability to pick another. I wouldn't want it banned, even though it causes far more trouble than raves, which are. If you don't like the smell of smoke, why on earth would you go to a place where smoking is allowed?
Reply ID 31933
No, only 2 bars in Hertford have the balls to go non smoking. It hasnt effected the Snug in the slightest, I cannot comment on the Salisbury.
Reply ID 31935
I have been reliably informed that all Mac establishments, which I don't frequent because I don't like theie beer, also now ban smoking at/within the vicinity of the bar itself. So at least you don't have to fight through a fug of smoke to actually get served.
Reply ID 31939
quote:Not the same. People have sued under employment law, quite rightly, but nobody has ever been proveably physically harmed by secondary smoking (except in the case of fire, almost always caused in conjunction with consumption of alcohol). I agree that smoking at the bar should be discouraged, as it may inconvienience staff, which is why many have adopted that policy. To simplify, the assumption was that because some non-smokers who had been exposed to secondary smoking died of lung cancer or similar deseases associated with 1st hand smoking, those deaths were attributable to secondary smoke. What was not included in the statistics was that exactly the same number of people who had never been exposed to secondary smoke also suffer the same fate. I'm sorry, but poor Roy Castle probably was just unlucky enough to be one of the 500 or so non-smokers who die from a desease we automatically associate with smoking, but does occur anyway. There is a issue with asthmatics, in common with many airborn particulates, but then I'm allergic to crustacious seafood. I don't expect it to be banned, just because I've had a couple of ambulance trips though inadvertant contact. I just avoid places where contact is inevitable. What about peanuts? Should we ban them? Take away the health issue, which is a lobby group red herring and this as a law which imposes the personal opinions of one section of society onto another. I don't care if it's smoking, drinking, or pole dancing, I find that dissapointing.
Originally posted by Avaricequote:Most of the third-party booze related damage is illegal and already recives legislation to try to minimise it. The same is now happening for third-party smoking damage.
Originally posted by shunt
The number of third party deaths from alcohol consumption? How about we ban alcohol? You then have the same choices as you'd wish on smokers.
Reply ID 31943
I welcome a total ban and for purely selfish reasons. I smoked for around 30 years, finally giving up about 4 years ago. Such is the addictive nature of tobacco, there is a rarely a day goes by still when I don't think about smoking but thankfully continue to resist the urge. So for me, it is pretty hard sitting in a bar trying to enjoy a pint when a lot of the time you are fighting the inner desire to go buy a packet as a result of the fumes from a nearby smoker! The Snug is not my sort of place and I don't do Macs so my non-smoking options are currently limited. Roll on the ban.
Reply ID 31950
Just because something isn't scientifically proven, doesn't mean it isn't so. There is no conclusive scientific proof that mobile phone masts/mobile phones are harmful or the MMR vaccine causes autism Yet there are still vocal elements of society that take action based on their beliefs in these matters. Roy Castle off Record Breakers died from Lung Cancer, probably caused by playing his trumpet in smokey bars. Children of parents who smoke suffer more respiratory disesases than children of parents who don't smoke. Bring on the ban
Reply ID 31967
SHUNT - how on earth do you come up with idea that a non smoking bar will lose its laughter ? Plus i see loads of suits smoking, so why should a non smoking bar attract business men to them ? i see more ' sterile business men in say Baroosh (a smoking bar) than in a non smoking bar like the snug (non smoking). Just because it is TRADITION does not mean to say that it is a good thing, should we condone smacking children as thats a tradition i remember growing up, its only until recently its frowned upon. Its a fact that smoking KILLS and others around you. Plus, for what good reason does it serve ? to gain a little kick to your nervous system. I think its sad to see smokers getting all fidgity because they need a cigarette- the habit CONTROLS them, you can see they turn crazy if they cant have one, now tell me, how can that be good for you ? Alcohol is the same, and is just as dangerous to your health, although it does not directly affect others around you in that moment like smoke. I do drink (im affraid the habit controls me,but trying to stop) and i have had some great times with alcohol, but that does mean to say it did not damage my body. I do feel it must be tough for the smokers and i feel for them, but hey ... thats evolution for ya .. seems humans by the mass are becoming more concious of there health and the planet,as it is our natural instinct to survive .. is it not ?
Reply ID 31975
quote:You miss my point. I am not pro-smoking.
Originally posted by lifestyle
SHUNT - how on earth do you come up with idea that a non smoking bar will lose its laughter ? Plus i see loads of suits smoking, so why should a non smoking bar attract business men to them ? i see more ' sterile business men in say Baroosh (a smoking bar) than in a non smoking bar like the snug (non smoking). Just because it is TRADITION does not mean to say that it is a good thing, should we condone smacking children as thats a tradition i remember growing up, its only until recently its frowned upon. Its a fact that smoking KILLS and others around you. Plus, for what good reason does it serve ? to gain a little kick to your nervous system. I think its sad to see smokers getting all fidgity because they need a cigarette- the habit CONTROLS them, you can see they turn crazy if they cant have one, now tell me, how can that be good for you ? Alcohol is the same, and is just as dangerous to your health, although it does not directly affect others around you in that moment like smoke. I do drink (im affraid the habit controls me,but trying to stop) and i have had some great times with alcohol, but that does mean to say it did not damage my body. I do feel it must be tough for the smokers and i feel for them, but hey ... thats evolution for ya .. seems humans by the mass are becoming more concious of there health and the planet,as it is our natural instinct to survive .. is it not ?
Reply ID 31980
Smokers stink, and then they pass on that smell to non smokers. Thats enough in my book. Ban them, and wash them!
Reply ID 31988
Having spent a holiday in Scotland this summer and visited a good number of bars and pubs in that fortnight, I have to say that the effect of the smoking ban (surely not the "No smoking ban")was entirely positive, plenty of customers, no smarting eyes or smelly clothes and hair reeking of tobacco at the end of the night. A good atmosphere in all senses of the word.
Reply ID 31989
quote:I'll tell you what. Let's put everything that annoys us about our fellow human being's habits in a hat and make every suggestion law. As long as we all stand still and do nothing, we'll be within the law. My point was that certain groups feed dodgy data into society until it becomes believed, using fear and scare-mongering to get it accepted. We have got the smoking ban, it's happened, and if it does make life so difficult and unpleasant for smokers that some give up, that's a good thing, but achieved by means which fly in the face of our national identity of a free nation. Don't get drawn into all the emotive lobbying lies that go with it. It is a loss of freedom, just as prohibition of alcohol in the US was during the thirties and without the massaging of data wouldn't have gained the support that it has. What we are led to believe about smoking now is as falsified as the opposite lie which was spread by the tobacco giants in the forties.
Originally posted by Dude
Smokers stink, and then they pass on that smell to non smokers. Thats enough in my book. Ban them, and wash them!
Reply ID 31990
In your opinion. After googling passive smoking there are 2 trains of thought, both non conclusive.
Reply ID 31991
quote:Shunt, your posts are usually spot on but that is just bullsh*t. Alchohol during the prohibition was completely banned, which isn't the case here at all. The only freedom lost is the smokers' freedom to impose their filthy habits on everyone else. It's just being reclassified as an activity which, along with urination and masturbation, is deemed unsuitable for public places. People can still do what they wish in the comfort of their own homes.
Originally posted by shunt
It is a loss of freedom, just as prohibition of alcohol in the US was during the thirties
Reply ID 31992
quote:Can't smoke in public. Can't piddle in public. Can't 'manipulate yourself into a frenzy' in public. By 'eck it's a police state.
[ .. It's just being reclassified as an activity which, along with urination and masturbation, is deemed unsuitable for public places.
Reply ID 32003
quote:America banned manufacture, sales and transportation of liquor so, no, you couldn't drink at home without breaking one of those laws. Imagine though if this ban, at the level at which it is being introduced, was about drink. Would you accept it? As for smokers imposing, do smokers break into you home to smoke? At the moment anyone may attend, or open, a no-smoking premises and no one is forced to enter one which has decided to permit smoking. Landlords and every customer has the choice. If you find your self exposed to smokers, it's because you have chosen to put yourself in a place where that is permitted. Nobody made you go there or said you may not have a bar which does not allow smoking and everybody there is an adult and capable of making that choice. This is about to change. The will of one section of society, is to be imposed on another and the reason for it being so readily accepted is because of deliberately and accidentally misleading data from lobyists, which has changed public perception to their favour. Public urination and masturbation carry greater third-party risks to public health than smoking and are more commonly associated with drinkers, as are violence, vandalism, noise nuisance, road death and rape. What do you reckon? Condemn smokers, ban them, make them social lepers by spreading manipulated rumour, sold as fact so that everybody hates them! Problem solved by the slaughter of a sacrificial goat.....or not. Drink will be next.[}:)]
Originally posted by Jobyquote:Shunt, your posts are usually spot on but that is just bullsh*t. Alchohol during the prohibition was completely banned, which isn't the case here at all. The only freedom lost is the smokers' freedom to impose their filthy habits on everyone else. It's just being reclassified as an activity which, along with urination and masturbation, is deemed unsuitable for public places. People can still do what they wish in the comfort of their own homes.
Originally posted by shunt
It is a loss of freedom, just as prohibition of alcohol in the US was during the thirties
Reply ID 32006
quote:Indeed there are. We are acting as if one was. Likewise Iraq war, catalytic convertors and lead free petrol, all of which were actioned on public reaction to information which later was proved to be in error and in some of those cases, deliberately falsified. Too late now though.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
In your opinion. After googling passive smoking there are 2 trains of thought, both non conclusive.
Reply ID 32009
I presume that as the Hertford Wetherspoon's Lloyds will be opening (on best guess) shortly before the 1st July, that it will be a non-smoking venue from the start?
Reply ID 32010
i think eventually alcohol will also be seen as un sociable... and the government in time will also ban it .. but not for a good few hundred years of evolution, when the time comes that humans will develop to control their habits and addictions along with emotions,as now we substitute a quick fix for a lack in spiritual growth in mind and body.. maybe ..?!! Why not CHEW tabacoo ? or use 'snuff'tobacco ? like alot of my Swedish friends(its popular in Scandanavia) that way .. there is no problem .. you still get the kick of nicotine and at the same time you dont bother non addicts with the smoke, and then we can all stay in the same room and be happy ...so there you a have your freedom to intake nicotine as you wish ..... no ?????? why is it so important to SMOKE IT ??
Reply ID 32014
quote:I guess you could inject alcohol. Wouldn't quite be the same though, would it?
Originally posted by lifestyle
i think eventually alcohol will also be seen as un sociable... and the government in time will also ban it .. but not for a good few hundred years of evolution, when the time comes that humans will develop to control their habits and addictions along with emotions,as now we substitute a quick fix for a lack in spiritual growth in mind and body.. maybe ..?!! Why not CHEW tabacoo ? or use 'snuff'tobacco ? like alot of my Swedish friends(its popular in Scandanavia) that way .. there is no problem .. you still get the kick of nicotine and at the same time you dont bother non addicts with the smoke, and then we can all stay in the same room and be happy ...so there you a have your freedom to intake nicotine as you wish ..... no ?????? why is it so important to SMOKE IT ??
Reply ID 32015
quote:Peeing in a doorway yes. W***ing in the street whilst drunk though? [?] Don't think so shunt
Originally posted by shunt Public urination and masturbation carry greater third-party risks to public health than smoking and are more commonly associated with drinkers
Reply ID 32018
quote:One must assume the same conditions that were being complained about for the urination, i.e. bar/restaurant. The other is unlikely under any circumstances, but if it were to occur at all, more likely with the reduced responsibility an inhibition of alcohol than due to the effects of a cigarette. That the examples given (not by me) don't compare, was my reason for the reply I gave. Strangly though, I have witnessed such a w***ing event; a female who was so drunk that she forgot she was not in private, or ceased to care. Luckily she passed out and was removed before she could return the the bowl of nuts on the bar.[:D] Anyway, we've got the smoking ban and maybe a side effect will be a few smokers giving up, which is a good thing. It was how it was done and what we lose as people in allowing our own deception, that I find objectionable. With the law looming, obviously new bars will be all no-smoking. The owners have lost the choice to do anything else.
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:Peeing in a doorway yes. W***ing in the street whilst drunk though? [?] Don't think so shunt
Originally posted by shunt Public urination and masturbation carry greater third-party risks to public health than smoking and are more commonly associated with drinkers
Reply ID 32020
quote:Mind you, there's plenty of w***ers in the town centre at chucking out time on a friday night [:)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:One must assume the same conditions that were being complained about for the urination, i.e. bar/restaurant. The other is unlikely under any circumstances, but if it were to occur at all, more likely with the reduced responsibility an inhibition of alcohol than due to the effects of a cigarette. That the examples given (not by me) don't compare, was my reason for the reply I gave. Strangly though, I have witnessed such a w***ing event; a female who was so drunk that she forgot she was not in private, or ceased to care. Luckily she passed out and was removed before she could return the the bowl of nuts on the bar.[:D] Anyway, we've got the smoking ban and maybe a side effect will be a few smokers giving up, which is a good thing. It was how it was done and what we lose as people in allowing our own deception, that I find objectionable. With the law looming, obviously new bars will be all no-smoking. The owners have lost the choice to do anything else.
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:Peeing in a doorway yes. W***ing in the street whilst drunk though? [?] Don't think so shunt
Originally posted by shunt Public urination and masturbation carry greater third-party risks to public health than smoking and are more commonly associated with drinkers
Reply ID 32023
first i must smile,and remind myself that my views may change.. ok .. it was a genuine question ???? what is the big thing about smoking tobacco rather than taken nicotine into the body through using 'snuff' for example. Its because i have never ever tried to smoke. I do see where you are coming from with thing about injecting alcohol as its not the same as enjoying say a pint lager, i.e. snuff is not the same as enjoying a cigarette. BUT my point was .. if i drink alcohol, the alcohol cells go straight into my body and then i get my kick. WITH smoking .. the nicotine cells also go straight into your body, same as alcohol ..... you also get your kick, same as alcohol .... but then you breath out into the air nicotine cells, which then effects others around you .. not the same as alcohol cells. SO by chewing tobacco or snuff (snus), you still get your intake of nicotine cells but without the release ............... BUT i guess there must be something else to do with an actual cigarette which i am missing as ive never touched one. ....... BUT yes .. i also think alcohol is not a good thing. I do drink ... but would much rather be able to get the same high of happiness by a natural means as to drink alcohol ... well .. im learning that you can ............ meditation and NLP training.(neurological programming) .. by improving the self are you then only able to help improve others........ in the grand scheme of things ..... smoking is minor .... but small steps are needed. BUT SHOCK HORROR ... how would we survive without our pubs and smoking ?.... eeerrrr .. concentrate on building a loving community ... maybe ?
Reply ID 32034
Ok i've read the last page (page 3) and as i said I smoke and drink, I drink with people who dont smoke, and i smoke with people who dont drink (hang on, no i dont!) Anyway by far the LUDICROUS post i have read is almost directly above mine! from a non smoker who drinks but doesnt want to? Am i understanding that correctly? I have to agree with the notion of what shunt is saying, (which annoys me because i find myself agreeing with him quite a lot lately!) If you dont want to smoke and cant stand the smell dont go to that particular pub! most of my mates (with one or two notable Scottish exceptions) have given up recently and fair play to them! I dont want to so i wont! However, when the law does come in, I will respect it and will go outside to smoke, I will put my fag out on the pavement as will most other smokers nipping out for a drag, and the area outside pubs will become littered! hey ho! there you go, no silver lining without a cloud (of smoke) is there!
Reply ID 32036
Thats correct Mad Mick, i dont smoke, but drink ... but i dont want to !! its not that i dont like the tatse, just dont like getting drunk ... and im not very good at not getting drunk, and this effects my life ..... hence i drink but dont want too, thing is, its addictive and when i drink it controls me .. not good. .... This debate will go on for ever until it stops. LUDICROUS post ??? now thats more like it,what a great compliment .. im not joking .. thank you. I leave you with a quaote by Einstein and this is not directed at anyone, i just like it ...... "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a genius-and alot of courage- to move in the oppisite direction."
Reply ID 32048
Its not often that this happens...but i am lost for words! (not for long tho!) Lifestyle i am truly sorry that you have a drinking problem but this is more supposed to be about smoking! which by the way I do not see as an addiction, more a lifestyle choice (no pun intended!) which also includes (but is not limited to): Drinking, arguing, being silly, falling over, explaining unexplanable injuries to Mrs Mad on a saturday morning! ALSO. Einstien was an idiot, It takes a lot of effort to make things bigger and more violent, beleive me, I know!
Reply ID 32052
Non smokers don't really have a choice because most pubs are not willing to go out on a limb to ban smoking. If 50% of the pubs in Hertford were smoke free, then I would have a choice.
Reply ID 32054
Since giving up the evil weed due to bad health 5 nearly 6 years ago, I find I cannot tolerate smokey atmospheres and I wish I did. But saying that i think premises will be cleaner and decor stay fresher without the smokers.. I cannot wait for the ban to come in. Its been in Spain for nearly 12 months, a huge smoking nation they are and it works and they accept it.. not a problem.. why such a fuss over here. Especially as this week the former smoker and anti-smoking King, Alan Carr, died of lung cancer at 72, directly related to his former habit... After giving up 30 years previously.. makes you think......
Reply ID 32056
Sorry DQ, I was in Madrid in September and they were still smoking in bars and the Hotel. I just googled it and apparently the ban does not apply to small bars that display a sign that says that smoking is allowed. It also cannot apply to night clubs as Joy Eslava was full of smoke.
Reply ID 32059
quote:I see where you are coming from but you are clearly a person who has not smoked - that was evident before you clarified the point. To a smoker, there can be a visual element of the enjoyment/addiction too which cannot be achieved through partaking of snuff/nicotine gum. HG Wells once wrote a short story about a man who temporarily lost his sight and made the point that the character could not taste tobacco properly unless he could see the smoke. For smokers out there try smoking an entire fag with your eyes shut - its pretty true.
Originally posted by lifestyle
first i must smile,and remind myself that my views may change.. ok .. it was a genuine question ???? what is the big thing about smoking tobacco rather than taken nicotine into the body through using 'snuff' for example. Its because i have never ever tried to smoke. I do see where you are coming from with thing about injecting alcohol as its not the same as enjoying say a pint lager, i.e. snuff is not the same as enjoying a cigarette. BUT my point was .. if i drink alcohol, the alcohol cells go straight into my body and then i get my kick. WITH smoking .. the nicotine cells also go straight into your body, same as alcohol ..... you also get your kick, same as alcohol .... but then you breath out into the air nicotine cells, which then effects others around you .. not the same as alcohol cells. SO by chewing tobacco or snuff (snus), you still get your intake of nicotine cells but without the release ............... BUT i guess there must be something else to do with an actual cigarette which i am missing as ive never touched one. ....... BUT yes .. i also think alcohol is not a good thing. I do drink ... but would much rather be able to get the same high of happiness by a natural means as to drink alcohol ... well .. im learning that you can ............ meditation and NLP training.(neurological programming) .. by improving the self are you then only able to help improve others........ in the grand scheme of things ..... smoking is minor .... but small steps are needed. BUT SHOCK HORROR ... how would we survive without our pubs and smoking ?.... eeerrrr .. concentrate on building a loving community ... maybe ?
Reply ID 32061
I sometimes smoke with my eyes shut, but i cant smoke them in the pub can i? Ban or no ban!
Reply ID 32067
quote:And it's not just pubs - most Chinese and Indian restaurants don't ban it either, in whole or in part. (I say most, in so far as I rarely find an Indian or Chinese which has a non-smoking section). Many premises that have non-smoking sections have such inadequate ventilation that it really makes no difference.
Originally posted by jez_p
Non smokers don't really have a choice because most pubs are not willing to go out on a limb to ban smoking. If 50% of the pubs in Hertford were smoke free, then I would have a choice.
Reply ID 32081
Sorry Victor Meldrew just come back from Lanzarote, they are strict out there.. not a spanish or foreign smoker anywhere indoors, they provide areas in hotels/bars or outside but nothing else..
Reply ID 32082
Albiet I am an Obdurate smoker (thats twice i have used that word today!) If i am in a restaurant I cant stand smoke, I will asked to move away from smokers or ask them to stop while im eating! so i know what you mean! It Stinks! however we arnt talking about restaurants we are talking about Pubs, where i have no problem with smoking unless there is food being served, in which case i agree with the ban or at least very good sectioning of / Air Con!
Reply ID 32088
quote:Funny sort of freedom to insist on: the freedom to be enslaved by an evil multi-national.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
Am I alone in thinking this another loss of a liberal freedom and another victory for the thought Gestapo that increasingly rule our lives? I have never smoked cigarettes.
Reply ID 32089
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32090
quote:The rules in Spain are a lot more lenient than over here and to be honest a little ambiguous. Below is what the Beeb said in Jan 06. A ban on smoking in the workplace is being put to the test in Spain as staff resume work after the New Year holiday. The ban went into effect on Sunday, when many businesses were closed for the holiday. The new law bans smoking in offices, shops, schools, hospitals, cultural centres and on public transport. Businesses occupying more than 100sq m have eight months to set up a separate smoking area. Smaller premises have to indicate whether they are smoke-free. I will admit that most of the bars I drank in were probably smaller than 100sq m and it was 3am by the time I went to the club, so..............
Originally posted by Drama Queen
Sorry Victor Meldrew just come back from Lanzarote, they are strict out there.. not a spanish or foreign smoker anywhere indoors, they provide areas in hotels/bars or outside but nothing else..
Reply ID 32091
Sorry just found this dated 14/11/06 which mighte explain. The Spanish government is trying to force the city of Madrid to end its defiance of smoking restrictions, which have made it a bastion of smoke-filled bars, cafes, canteens and restaurants. The socialist government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero asked a court on Monday to suspend city legislation that effectively contradicts nationwide rules on smoking, which came into force on January 1. The conservative head of Madrid's provincial government, Esperanza Aguirre, passed a local law allowing bigger restaurants to ignore the new requirement for them to physically separate smoking and non-smoking sections.
Reply ID 32096
quote:My point is that smoking is an addictive habit with no benefits. Without neccessarily advocating any of the following: Alcohol gets you drunk, cannabis gets you high, and heroin, so I've heard, makes you feel good. But smoking does little but satisfy the urge to smoke a fag. This, coupled with a huge body of scientific evidence that It's very likely to make you ill, means that we have a small number of powerful multi-nationals, making vast amounts of money out of getting consumers addicted to a relatively pointless product that could kill them. People talk about freedom to choose, but How free are you to choose if you're an addict? I just think that the freedom to be addicted to something pointless and deadly is a funny sort of freedom to get wound up about. That's what I meant.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32108
quote:No benefits? I guess you have never been a smoker - I was, not so long ago, and there really is more to it that just satisfying a craving. When I smoked, I smoked because I enjoyed a cigarette. I gave up, not because I no longer enjoyed it, but because it seemed pointless to keep to a regime of medication designed to reduce my high blood pressure without removing one of the possible causes of that hypertension.
Originally posted by dudleyquote:My point is that smoking is an addictive habit with no benefits. Without neccessarily advocating any of the following: Alcohol gets you drunk, cannabis gets you high, and heroin, so I've heard, makes you feel good. But smoking does little but satisfy the urge to smoke a fag. This, coupled with a huge body of scientific evidence that It's very likely to make you ill, means that we have a small number of powerful multi-nationals, making vast amounts of money out of getting consumers addicted to a relatively pointless product that could kill them. People talk about freedom to choose, but How free are you to choose if you're an addict? I just think that the freedom to be addicted to something pointless and deadly is a funny sort of freedom to get wound up about. That's what I meant.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32109
quote:Agreed. There is far more to smoking than simple addiction. If I could have all that without the health risk and social bullying, I'd definately still smoke for pleasure. The down side for smokers, the things that make them want to quit, is not the experience of smoking, but the cost of huge taxation, their increasing exclusion by non-smokers and the risk to their health. Despite my objection to false data, there appear to be some very real risks which are not disproven;- to the smoker, to the unborn child of a smoking expectant mother and to very young children (if exposed to a rarely occurring and very extreme level of second hand smoke).
Originally posted by Deverauxquote:No benefits? I guess you have never been a smoker - I was, not so long ago, and there really is more to it that just satisfying a craving. When I smoked, I smoked because I enjoyed a cigarette. I gave up, not because I no longer enjoyed it, but because it seemed pointless to keep to a regime of medication designed to reduce my high blood pressure without removing one of the possible causes of that hypertension.
Originally posted by dudleyquote:My point is that smoking is an addictive habit with no benefits. Without neccessarily advocating any of the following: Alcohol gets you drunk, cannabis gets you high, and heroin, so I've heard, makes you feel good. But smoking does little but satisfy the urge to smoke a fag. This, coupled with a huge body of scientific evidence that It's very likely to make you ill, means that we have a small number of powerful multi-nationals, making vast amounts of money out of getting consumers addicted to a relatively pointless product that could kill them. People talk about freedom to choose, but How free are you to choose if you're an addict? I just think that the freedom to be addicted to something pointless and deadly is a funny sort of freedom to get wound up about. That's what I meant.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32112
quote:Actually I was a smoker, and still am when I've had enough ale, but beyond the indefinable aesthetic appeal of a smokey boozer, I don't personally find that smoking has any benefits other than relieving the craving for a fag (which I accept can be pleasureable). Oh, and of course it makes you look cool and impresses ladies. I guess we've gone way off topic now. Sorry.
Originally posted by Deverauxquote:No benefits? I guess you have never been a smoker - I was, not so long ago, and there really is more to it that just satisfying a craving. When I smoked, I smoked because I enjoyed a cigarette. I gave up, not because I no longer enjoyed it, but because it seemed pointless to keep to a regime of medication designed to reduce my high blood pressure without removing one of the possible causes of that hypertension.
Originally posted by dudleyquote:My point is that smoking is an addictive habit with no benefits. Without neccessarily advocating any of the following: Alcohol gets you drunk, cannabis gets you high, and heroin, so I've heard, makes you feel good. But smoking does little but satisfy the urge to smoke a fag. This, coupled with a huge body of scientific evidence that It's very likely to make you ill, means that we have a small number of powerful multi-nationals, making vast amounts of money out of getting consumers addicted to a relatively pointless product that could kill them. People talk about freedom to choose, but How free are you to choose if you're an addict? I just think that the freedom to be addicted to something pointless and deadly is a funny sort of freedom to get wound up about. That's what I meant.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32121
i think after a while, not smoking in pubs will become so normal, that smokers will soon forget that they ever could, i remember when one could smoke on buses and in cinemas, although i was too young to remember if there was up roar when it got banned in these palces, can anyone remember ???? i think in the looooooooong future no body will smoke(this time may come when the government make illegal because they have found another higher way to tax us), and the younger generations growing up will not even know that it had ever existed, and thus to smoke will not be in the mind's make up to desire a cigarette for pleasure, thus not make a habit out of it. Before Christopher Columbus brought tobacco back from America all those years ago, what did smokers do for pleasure ... there must have been looooaaads of non smoking watering holes back then........ i wonder what the forums were like back then, maybe "" HEY, did you hear about the Dog and Duck ??? they are starting to let people smoke in there!!! .... i cant believe the government are taken away our freedom "" ... then after a while when everyone starts, it becomes the norm, until the day comes when someone actually decides to question it ??? any one read 'The tipping point'????
Reply ID 32189
This thread reminds me of an interview I heard years ago on Radio 4's Today programme, when an M.P. lobbying for the tobacco industry stated. "Banning smoking on the Underground is unfair, because the huge number of smokers that at the minute cram into only two smoking carriages on a tube train will have to find other means of transit." There was an embarrassed silence from the presenters - knowing full well that all their non-smoking listeners who travelled in the rush hour on the tube, would have looked furiously through from their packed shoulder to shoulder non-smoking carriage into the half empty smoking carriages! Maybe this time round older non-smoking folk who have deserted the pubs will return.
Reply ID 32203
quote:I'm a smoker, but I wouldn't want to smoke on a rush hour tube either, anymore than I'd consume four pints of bitter between Finsbury Park and Brixton. I think said MP was on a losing wicket from the start with that one! The tube is a rather different case, being a public service which many have to use and which has no alternative. This is not true of pubs, which are a leisure environment and able to provide smoking and non-smoking environments as demand dictates. The experience in pubs has been the opposite of the one described on tubes, the non-smoking space being less crowded and only few pubs finding sufficient demand to go fully non-smoking, or at least that has been true in Hertford. I also haven't noticed an absence of older people in pubs and doubt that non-smoking will bring hoards of old folk out into Fore Street on a Saturday night.
Originally posted by Paul
This thread reminds me of an interview I heard years ago on Radio 4's Today programme, when an M.P. lobbying for the tobacco industry stated. "Banning smoking on the Underground is unfair, because the huge number of smokers that at the minute cram into only two smoking carriages on a tube train will have to find other means of transit." There was an embarrassed silence from the presenters - knowing full well that all their non-smoking listeners who travelled in the rush hour on the tube, would have looked furiously through from their packed shoulder to shoulder non-smoking carriage into the half empty smoking carriages! Maybe this time round older non-smoking folk who have deserted the pubs will return.
Reply ID 32206
I wonder what the impact will be on our Council Tax? After all, someone is going to have to be paid to clear all the dog-ends up off the street.
Reply ID 32233
I am going to have to give up now as I feel like I have leprosy. Seriously though what is going to be banned next in pubs - swearing, debating sports/religion/politics, wearing work clothes? This nanny state is getting bloody ridiculous and I voted for them.
Reply ID 32235
quote:Well more fool you then!!!!!
Originally posted by Wrapper
I am going to have to give up now as I feel like I have leprosy. Seriously though what is going to be banned next in pubs - swearing, debating sports/religion/politics, wearing work clothes? This nanny state is getting bloody ridiculous and I voted for them.
Reply ID 32320
quote:religion and politics are already considered as an un written rule to be banned in pubs ....... those topics dont mix well fuelled with alcohol.
Originally posted by Wrapper
I am going to have to give up now as I feel like I have leprosy. Seriously though what is going to be banned next in pubs - swearing, debating sports/religion/politics, wearing work clothes? This nanny state is getting bloody ridiculous and I voted for them.
Reply ID 32323
quote:Not where I drink. Nothing should be forbidden material for pub gibber. What's the alternative? The boozer provides a venue where many people can ignore their discomfort about consuming valuable time dribbling over all manner of nonsense (often all in the one 5 minute conversation). Yes strong feelings and alcohol (and fags) often coincide with bruises - unpleasantness occupies a small proportion and is a necessary bi-product. I can't imagine anywhere I frequent where I, nor any of my friends, cover 1% of the schtuff we mangle in the pub. Pub talk - it is rich beyond common appreciation. Pub smoke - I could live without it.
Originally posted by lifestylequote:religion and politics are already considered as an un written rule to be banned in pubs ....... those topics dont mix well fuelled with alcohol.
Originally posted by Wrapper
I am going to have to give up now as I feel like I have leprosy. Seriously though what is going to be banned next in pubs - swearing, debating sports/religion/politics, wearing work clothes? This nanny state is getting bloody ridiculous and I voted for them.
Reply ID 32329
quote:When they do ban it Mate we will all find somewhere to go. See you there [:D]
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32380
I can remember a time when people wondered in and out of shops with their ciggies dangling from their lips, but that's not acceptable now and no-one minds not being able to smoke whilst wondering up and down the aisles in Tesco. Given time, smoking in pubs will become as much of a socially unacceptable no-no as smoking in the cinema/theatre/on planes/in the office etc., has become. It will be very interesting to know which pubs/clubs etc., will be breaking the law by allowing smoking in the workplace.
Reply ID 32393
Erm i take issue with that FW, I mind not being able to wonder through tesco whilst smoking (whatever i feel like) at the time! but that information will not surprise you. Why dont the government stop fannying about and just ban it all together? oh yes i know! it is because, despite all their spouting off, they know that if they ban it the NHS will finally go up in smoke! (no pun intended) SMOKERS, you need them, you just dont realise you need them!
Reply ID 32416
quote:I disagree, and I was a twenty/thirty a day person until 3 years ago. I used to convince myself that I enjoyed smoking, that it was pleasurable, relaxing, nice with a pint etc etc, but the fact of the matter is, thats exactly what an addictive substance does. Takes a substance that the body should reject, and convinces the brain it wants more. If you ask 99.9% of smokers, if you could wave a magic want and they could give up smoking forever and never need to look back, they would bite your arm off, despite saying they "enjoy" smoking.
Originally posted by Deverauxquote:No benefits? I guess you have never been a smoker - I was, not so long ago, and there really is more to it that just satisfying a craving. When I smoked, I smoked because I enjoyed a cigarette. I gave up, not because I no longer enjoyed it, but because it seemed pointless to keep to a regime of medication designed to reduce my high blood pressure without removing one of the possible causes of that hypertension.
Originally posted by dudleyquote:My point is that smoking is an addictive habit with no benefits. Without neccessarily advocating any of the following: Alcohol gets you drunk, cannabis gets you high, and heroin, so I've heard, makes you feel good. But smoking does little but satisfy the urge to smoke a fag. This, coupled with a huge body of scientific evidence that It's very likely to make you ill, means that we have a small number of powerful multi-nationals, making vast amounts of money out of getting consumers addicted to a relatively pointless product that could kill them. People talk about freedom to choose, but How free are you to choose if you're an addict? I just think that the freedom to be addicted to something pointless and deadly is a funny sort of freedom to get wound up about. That's what I meant.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Christ on a bike dudley what are you talking about? I smoke but im not a slave, I admit i was stupid to start, but i get some kind of weird enjoyment from it. and am a slave to nothing!
Reply ID 32428
quote:It's not the impact on the nhs, it's the severe drop in money the government would receive from tax on cigarettes! Not to mention the fact that those employed in the industry will all lose jobs, again something the government has to avoid at all costs!
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Erm i take issue with that FW, I mind not being able to wonder through tesco whilst smoking (whatever i feel like) at the time! but that information will not surprise you. Why dont the government stop fannying about and just ban it all together? oh yes i know! it is because, despite all their spouting off, they know that if they ban it the NHS will finally go up in smoke! (no pun intended) SMOKERS, you need them, you just dont realise you need them!
Reply ID 32433
How do the government pay for the NHS then Codek? Pocket money?
Reply ID 32435
Believe you me, this Government is taxing us by stealth so much I wouldn;t worry too much about where the money from people giving up the fags will come from! They will just tax drinkers, drivers and other vulnerable groups.. yep people!!! I did used to enjoy smoking but then something changed and it made me ill and I was very then aware that they weren't my friends. The additives tobacco companies put into ciggies makes you want to smoke more, which is why its so hard to give up. But there are enough of us that have (5 years years yesterday!) and the NHS Stop Smoking lot are great, very good service. So as much as I miss the earlier years of smoking, now I enjoy my life a lot more, food tastes good, I smell better and I have more money in my pocket for Gordon Brown to tax me on!!!
Reply ID 32436
All very good points DQ, but do you think that the same government has a right to tell us that we can no longer smoke in Pubs? (notwithstanding the argument that people who abhore smoking have nowhere to drink at present)
Reply ID 32438
I imagine that most smokers would feel offended if I dropped my kecks and laid one down in the pub. That smells and is dangerous to other indviduals and the law (and common decency)says that I cant do that, whats the difference? [:D]
Reply ID 32440
quote:None at all Vic - and from what I remember of some French fags the source is the same [:)]
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
I imagine that most smokers would feel offended if I dropped my kecks and laid one down in the pub. That smells and is dangerous to other indviduals and the law (and common decency)says that I cant do that, whats the difference? [:D]
Reply ID 32441
quote:The only difference is you saved a fiver! [:D]
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
I imagine that most smokers would feel offended if I dropped my kecks and laid one down in the pub. That smells and is dangerous to other indviduals and the law (and common decency)says that I cant do that, whats the difference? [:D]
Reply ID 32447
quote:You can do just that in a public place designated for the purpose. What we are talking about here is forbidding the designation of a premises for the purpose of smoking. Maybe we should ban your suggested activity in public toilets, lest it offends those who just came in to wash their hands and didn't realise that they might be exposed to the aroma and potential health risk of your activities, or would that just be ridiculous and insulting to the rights of people to make their own choices?
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
I imagine that most smokers would feel offended if I dropped my kecks and laid one down in the pub. That smells and is dangerous to other indviduals and the law (and common decency)says that I cant do that, whats the difference? [:D]
Reply ID 32448
quote:The pubs designation is to serve drink. Smoking happens to be allowed in the majority of these places, much like the serving of hot food. What we are talking about is the updating of laws to take into account greater medical understanding, and the negative impact smoking has, be it directly or indirectly.
What we are talking about here is forbidding the designation of a premises for the purpose of smoking.
Reply ID 32450
Shunt, you can smoke in the most public place in the World, its called the great outdoors, you cant get more public than that. Public toilets were designed to go to the toilet in, Public houses were designed to drink beer in.
Reply ID 32453
Whilst I appreciate that not everybody likes (and infact a lot of people loath) the smell of tobacco smoke, might i suggest that through all this there is a common thread? We ARE being nannied (yet again) by this government, surely it should be up to the landlord of the pub to decide if he will allow smoking, he/she being in by far the best position as to how many punters he is loosing/gaining by having/not having a smoking ban! Oh how silly of me, we cant possibly let people make their own minds up can we Mr B'liar?
Reply ID 32454
quote:Yeah I get that, but a pub, despite the name, is not a public place, but a business which is already licenced to sell another powerful and addictive drug. Nobody, who does not wish to do so by choice, is compelled to enter either a smoking or non-smoking pub and no pub owner who wishes his pub to be non-smoking is compelled to permit it. Seems to me, the public are already adequately protected and nobody has to be exposed to smokers unless they choose to be. For that reason, whatever the controversy over health risks, they are all irrelevent to protecting the public, which is the banner under which this has been sold. From there it can only be one group forcing their lifestyle choices of everybody else. The bit I find hard to swallow is that, smoker or non-smoker, the public has been misled by a lobby group, who, even if they have not misrepresented the science, have misrepresented the social morality of the issue to suppress protest and turn it into a witch hunt.
Originally posted by Dudequote:The pubs designation is to serve drink. Smoking happens to be allowed in the majority of these places, much like the serving of hot food. What we are talking about is the updating of laws to take into account greater medical understanding, and the negative impact smoking has, be it directly or indirectly.
What we are talking about here is forbidding the designation of a premises for the purpose of smoking.
Reply ID 32456
I would like to know as a matter of interest how many people have caused injury/death to their partner/family whilst under the influence of tobacco compared to something else that you are freely allowed to do in a pub....erm drinking alcohol for instance??
Reply ID 32458
I used to be a publican and when people asked what I did for a living, I'd reply, "I'm a drug dealer". Licensed, perhaps, but that's what it is.
Reply ID 32462
quote:May be not tobacoo itself, but many house fires have been caused by smouldering cigarettes.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
I would like to know as a matter of interest how many people have caused injury/death to their partner/family whilst under the influence of tobacco compared to something else that you are freely allowed to do in a pub....erm drinking alcohol for instance??
Reply ID 32463
Oh come on you know what im saying! one drug is ok and the other isnt? its about choice, we have choices and those choices are being taken away! Ok so how many people injured by fire (caused by tobacco) compared to those injured by drunk people?
Reply ID 32465
What has alcohol got to do with the ban on smoking in pubs?
Reply ID 32466
quote:The type of venue and it's suitability to accomodate drug use without imposing it on those who do not wish to partake.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
What has alcohol got to do with the ban on smoking in pubs?
Reply ID 32468
Thankyou shunt!
Reply ID 32469
quote:Sorry Mick, I'm installing software (yawn) so I'm hovering over the keyboard.[:D]
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Thankyou shunt!
Reply ID 32471
No No i mean thankyou, i was so totally gobsmacked that someone would ask what alcohol has to do with a thread about smoking in PUBS!! that i couldnt answer coherently!
Reply ID 32472
Sorry, I still don't get it. The thread is about the impending smoking ban in pubs. However, it seems to have been turned into a debate about which is worse - smoking or drinking alcohol. The consumption of alcohol and its effects has nothing to do with the smoking ban.
Reply ID 32474
quote:Big hint. Where is the smoking ban being applied and what do those venues sell?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Sorry, I still don't get it. The thread is about the impending smoking ban in pubs. However, it seems to have been turned into a debate about which is worse - smoking or drinking alcohol. The consumption of alcohol and its effects has nothing to do with the smoking ban.
Reply ID 32475
Quote from the BBC "Smoking ban date announced Are you ready for the ban on smoking in public places? The Government's finally given 1 July 2007 as the date when the legislation - which will have far-reaching repercussions for businesses - will come into force in England. The ban covers just about all indoor public places, including pubs, restaurants, factories and offices. Private homes aren't covered, nor is outdoors. The ban does not solely refer to pubs!!!!!
Reply ID 32476
Here are a few things to mull over. Some of you have been complaining that smoking shouldn't be banned in pubs because alcohol kills more people than smoking and/or passive smoking. Pubs aren't the only outlets for alcohol. That is why I have questioned the validity of the arguement. Take the alcohol out of the pub and alcohol will still kill people. It's like arguing to shut down all fossil fuel burning generators of electriciy because of the effects on global warming then countering the arguement that cars should be banned because they contribute as well. Maybe they do, but it is nothing to do with the original arguement. As far as I am aware, pubs are in business to sell alcohol. Stop them selling alcohol and it's highly likely that they will go out of business. Stop people smoking in them and it's unlikely that they will goout of business. It is not compulsory to smoke a cigarette while you are having a drink. If you're not happy with the ban, do something about it. Start a "smoking club". Launch a campaign to re-introduce smoking in pubs, etc. Start up a political party that has the re-introduction of smoking in pubs, etc in its manifesto. If you do, don't be surprised to get a load of people saying that you are taking away their human rights, etc.
Reply ID 32477
quote:All these points have been considered and mulled over, John. Off-licenses just sell alcohol, pubs sell alcohol by the provision of a social environment in which a number of activities may be undertaken or provided, those activities being defined by it's owners and limited by the law. No it is not compulsory to smoke a cigarette whilst having a drink anymore than it is to eat pork scratchings or to visit a premises which allows either. It is about to become compulsory to not smoke a cigarette on private property, with the permission of it's owner and the implied permission of everyone in there. To smoke a cigarette in such circumstances cannot possibly be an infringement of anyones human rights, unless you believe you own the nation's pubs or that they are provided by the government as a social ammenity and that you are compelled to attend a particular premises, rather than another! The example of global warming is not the same, as that effects everyone whether they like it or not. If you don't like global warming, you can't go elsewhere. As the law currently stands, nobody is exposed to cigarette smoke unless they choose to be. Anybody effected by the smoke of others has chosen to attend somewhere where smoking is allowed. A smoker when he stops smoking and leaves the premises, is not a danger to anyone, if he ever was. The same is not true of alcohol. The reason for using alcohol as a comparison is that when logic is applied with the same criteria of risk to others, infringement of choice of those not wishing to be affected, there is a very good case for banning alcohol and none for banning smoking. It is an intellectual exercise to expose the real reasons for this ban. Nobody is advocating banning drink. A smoking club would also be illegal and not even allowed to be a business. Niether is it realisic to fight an already successful propaganda campaign of this type. The damage is done. Look at the reaction of non-smokers to the suggestion that there might be an alternative viewpoint just on this thread. Recognise the robotic, quoted insults lifted from that propaganda? Now, banning smoking in the street... that would make sense, but then only because of inconvenience of possible inadvertent contact, so even that would be madness to put first on a list. Some of the previous legislation banning smoking on public transport and at work, I thoroughly support. Being in these places is not so much a matter of choice and in those cases, I uphold the rights of non-smokers absolutely.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Here are a few things to mull over. Some of you have been complaining that smoking shouldn't be banned in pubs because alcohol kills more people than smoking and/or passive smoking. Pubs aren't the only outlets for alcohol. That is why I have questioned the validity of the arguement. Take the alcohol out of the pub and alcohol will still kill people. It's like arguing to shut down all fossil fuel burning generators of electriciy because of the effects on global warming then countering the arguement that cars should be banned because they contribute as well. Maybe they do, but it is nothing to do with the original arguement. As far as I am aware, pubs are in business to sell alcohol. Stop them selling alcohol and it's highly likely that they will go out of business. Stop people smoking in them and it's unlikely that they will goout of business. It is not compulsory to smoke a cigarette while you are having a drink. If you're not happy with the ban, do something about it. Start a "smoking club". Launch a campaign to re-introduce smoking in pubs, etc. Start up a political party that has the re-introduction of smoking in pubs, etc in its manifesto. If you do, don't be surprised to get a load of people saying that you are taking away their human rights, etc.
Reply ID 32480
But what if I choose to go in the Woolpack or the Blackbirds or the Ram Inn or the White Hart? Or maybe I'm not supposed to go into a pub because it infringes someone else's human rights. My non-smoking won't cause someone else to smell or possibly affect their health.
Reply ID 32483
If the government did not act on certain laws, change them when needed, when they have new and improved information by specialists, then the world would be a mess. FREE will and FREE choice the smokers say, its up to the smoker to decide .... well, why not make class A drugs like to smoke cocaine LEGAL and leave it up to our human rights wether one would decide to smoke it or not ... (i do not,this is just an example) .... or anything at that matter ... lets make everything legal and then we decide if to do it or not .... can u imagine the chaos, i think you maybe able to agree that alot of humans are not very good at practising FREE WILL .... see thats why a government step in ... they see an issue like "oh .. we have facts that smoking kills, and if not it costs us thousands of pounds keeping some of these smokers alive in hospitals and medicine due to its affacts. What shall we do to save our humans ????? ah yes .... lets try and stop people from smoking " ... so slowly slowly they introduce new laws ... why ??? some of us cant be trusted to stop killing ourselfs.
Reply ID 32484
quote:It is not your right to visit in any of those places, but you are invited to. It is, at the moment, their right to choose whether they allow smoking or not on their own premises. Going into a pub which allows smoking, as a non-smoker infringes no-one's human rights. You might choose not to do so though. That is your right.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
But what if I choose to go in the Woolpack or the Blackbirds or the Ram Inn or the White Hart? Or maybe I'm not supposed to go into a pub because it infringes someone else's human rights. My non-smoking won't cause someone else to smell or possibly affect their health.
Reply ID 32485
quote:However, it is unlikely that I would be turned away from any of those pubs and I would then be open to inadvertent contact with smoke. Or, as I said before, maybe I should just stay at home.
Originally posted by shunt
Now, banning smoking in the street... that would make sense, but then only because of inconvenience of possible inadvertent contact, so even that would be madness to put first on a list.
Reply ID 32486
ah ... yes .. ban it in the streets too .. great idea .. i was walking down the street and passed a smoker .... i got a right face full of smoke .... not nice. I think in Tokoyo this is law over there already.
Reply ID 32493
quote:Why do you support a ban on smoking in the workplace? From your previous posts you appear to believe that it's not a health hazard to non-smokers.
Originally posted by shunt
Some of the previous legislation banning smoking on public transport and at work, I thoroughly support. Being in these places is not so much a matter of choice and in those cases, I uphold the rights of non-smokers absolutely.
Reply ID 32496
quote:Because te worklace is not a place where a social/leisure activity is appropriate and particularly if one's fellow workers find it annoying or unpalletable. Nobody has a choice whether to attend or not, other than doing without the job, which would be unfair and and disadvantage a non-smoker who objected.
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:Why do you support a ban on smoking in the workplace? From your previous posts you appear to believe that it's not a health hazard to non-smokers.
Originally posted by shunt
Some of the previous legislation banning smoking on public transport and at work, I thoroughly support. Being in these places is not so much a matter of choice and in those cases, I uphold the rights of non-smokers absolutely.
Reply ID 32497
What about the people that work in pubs?
Reply ID 32498
quote:Like smokers might choose to after July, you mean? You are a non-smoker, John. You are banned from nowhere now and about to have every premises compelled by law to cater for your tastes only. Seems to me you have little to gripe about.
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:However, it is unlikely that I would be turned away from any of those pubs and I would then be open to inadvertent contact with smoke. Which is why I advocated that premises state clearly if they allow smoking, as is the case in California. However, I'm sure you already know which pubs alow smoking and which don't. Or, as I said before, maybe I should just stay at home.
Originally posted by shunt
Now, banning smoking in the street... that would make sense, but then only because of inconvenience of possible inadvertent contact, so even that would be madness to put first on a list.
Reply ID 32499
quote:Tokyo is "instead of", not "as well". Private property, where it's known smoking is allowed, is entirely appropriate for the activity. On the street, is not because it removes the non-smokers choice of segregation. The problem is that many non-smokers groups are made up of evangelistic, aggressive zealots and thus here our legal response has little to do with science, fact, human rights, or even common-sense, but entirely emotively driven.
Originally posted by lifestyle
ah ... yes .. ban it in the streets too .. great idea .. i was walking down the street and passed a smoker .... i got a right face full of smoke .... not nice. I think in Tokoyo this is law over there already.
Reply ID 32500
You won't be banned from going down the pub or wherever. You can still go to these establishments. You could start drinking in the Golden Griffin. Looks like they are building a special covered area for smokers. Funny how us non-smokers were not thought about when smoking wasn't banned in pubs. I won't have anything to gripe about after July. Can't wait to go down the pub and not go home reeking of smoke. Smokers have had it their own way for 400 years. The way this world is going, us non-smokers won't have anywhere near that amount of time.
Reply ID 32502
quote:The no-smoking at the bar takes care of that and that non-smoking pubs are not illegal. However, the unproven risk, if it exists at all, is lower than say, a car paint sprayer in full PPE, even if one takes the worse case scenario. Should we drive our cars in bare metal and ban anybody from choosing a career as a bodyshop technician?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
What about the people that work in pubs?
Reply ID 32503
Ah yes, the maginot line. All that smoke stops before it hits the bar because it is too scared to break the law and pass over into the area behind the bar. And the pot collectors all wear gas masks as they pick up the empties. Once again, you bring another arguement into it. This has nothing to do with cars, alcohol or the price of onions.
Reply ID 32504
quote:Well not really. There has never been any law restricting non-smokers, and you may go to the pub without reeking of smoke now, if you choose a non-smoking pub which are slowly becoming available as the market demands. What you are advocating is expelling an activity from premises to suit your personal choice and advocating herding those who enjoy it into a bicycle shed like cattle. I, for one, would not suffer the indignity, but will not be driven from pubs, because whether they like it or not, they are obliged by law to conceed to one section of society's views. I expect I'll be in the stocks for my religion in a few years time too, in the company of drinkers and people of an non-official political view! Non-smokers, so focussed on what they gain, have not even considered what they are losing or how strongly they would also oppose it if it were something they had less self-interest in. That is why all the comparisons to drink. Nobody suggested banning drink, just that non-smoking drinkers thought about the change to society they are encouraging.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
You won't be banned from going down the pub or wherever. You can still go to these establishments. You could start drinking in the Golden Griffin. Looks like they are building a special covered area for smokers. Funny how us non-smokers were not thought about when smoking wasn't banned in pubs. I won't have anything to gripe about after July. Can't wait to go down the pub and not go home reeking of smoke. Smokers have had it their own way for 400 years. The way this world is going, us non-smokers won't have anywhere near that amount of time.
Reply ID 32506
Once upon a time,it was quite acceptable to have a slave trade; it was quite acceptable to send small boys up chimneys and down coal mines. That didn't make it right. People began to see that it was wrong. The same thing is happening regarding smoking.......and I speak as one who had a 50 a day habit until I gave up 19 years ago. At one time it was acceptable to drive after drinking........now most people accept that it is not. The same thing is happening regarding smoking, and in spite of all the pro-smoking arguments come next July you will have to adapt.
Reply ID 32512
Why did we ban the slave trade? It was a disgusting abuse of a person's ability. Women as linesmen was an awful decision. I wouldn't extend it to women referees though, not just yet. Why don't we ban real men who smoke sometimes in a pub and look after their families through good hard graft? 2008/9 maybe. The end is Nigh. Dictatorship is here!
Reply ID 32513
For more than 20 years I have had to make a compromise. If I wanted to go to a pub or club and didn't want to have to put with a smokey atmosphere my only options were: a) stand outside, b) not go out or c) lump it. What is wrong with smokers having to do the same for a while?
Reply ID 32514
quote:Why did we ban the slave trade? I really, really hope you are joking
Originally posted by James007
Why did we ban the slave trade? It was a disgusting abuse of a person's ability. Women as linesmen was an awful decision. I wouldn't extend it to women referees though, not just yet. Why don't we ban real men who smoke sometimes in a pub and look after their families through good hard graft? 2008/9 maybe. The end is Nigh. Dictatorship is here!
Reply ID 32515
quote:Are those not the options of life? Little entertainment pleases me, but I seek out that which does. Karaoke I hate, football in pubs I find intrusive and the behaviour which accompanies it, often offensive, I am violently and dangerously allergic to seafood, I like a Vodka and tonic, but abhor drunkeness, I hate the smell of beer, despite having been a publican and cellarman. I don't expect legislation to provide more of what I like and to forbid the tastes of others, I just don't go to the places I don't like, or are dangerous to me, or may make me feel ill. I put up with the smell stale beery breath from my companions, because it would be unreasonable expect a spirits only pub. It's an entertainment industry, not a compulsory occupation or life essential. If ever there was a place for free choice, it is in pubs. In some other places, there is a good case for a ban, though for reasons of non-smokers rights, not public health, but I don't see why all pubs should be adjusted by law to the tastes of only one section of society.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
For more than 20 years I have had to make a compromise. If I wanted to go to a pub or club and didn't want to have to put with a smokey atmosphere my only options were: a) stand outside, b) not go out or c) lump it. What is wrong with smokers having to do the same for a while?
Reply ID 32516
But there is no free choice in pubs at the moment. Non-smokers are treated like lepers!
Reply ID 32545
quote:B******s Delete if you must Admin.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
But there is no free choice in pubs at the moment. Non-smokers are treated like lepers!
Reply ID 32552
A well rounded reply from one of Hertford's publicans. Let me ask you a question. What have you done to accommodate your customers who want to have pint in a smoke free atmosphere? Look at the options in Hertford at the moment for those of us who like to go to the pub but hate having to breathe in second hand fumes from cigarettes and stinking of them. 1 pub and the BACK bar of another one. Even when a pub does do something for the non-smoker, it is to shove them out the back out of the way. What if I don't particularly like the atmosphere in The Snug or being hidden away from the public eye in the Salisbury? The only option is to lump it. If I want to go to Baroosh or the Woolpack or the Ram Inn then I have no option but to drink and go home stinking of smoke. I can remember working with people who would sit at the same table as me and smoke while I was eating. When I asked them if they wouldn't smoke while I was eating they would say no! I was the one that had to move. I've worked in offices where there was a smoking ban until 5.30pm and then got snide remarks from the management for not staying late when all the smokers sparked up. From experience, this is so typical of the smokers' attitude. Imagine what would happen if I took a sip of my drink and spat it out into a smoker's drink. As I said in a previous post. At least one pub has erected an outdoor shelter for the smokers. Funny how they never thought of doing something like that for the non-smokers. It's always the non-smoker that has had to make the compromise or move so that the smoker can carry on stinking us out. Now that the shoe is on the other foot the smokers are moaning. Well, do what I've always had to do - compromise or lump it.
Reply ID 32557
John, you are Factually incorrect in your statement, as there is now ANOTHER non smoking pub in Hertford town centre, I would have thought that, as you clearly like to go out so much and enjoy the various hospitality that the town has to offer, you would know this? Obviously not tho? well as a smoker (who doesnt really appreciate being lumped in with the inconsiderate smokers) I can point out to you that the White Hart is now a Non Smoking establishment! I can imagine what would happen if you spat into my drink! with regard to the behavior of people at you work place , I would suggest you may have been better off talking to them at the time rather than having a pop at the smokers in this forum. as a final comment however, If you dont like the white Hart, The Snug, The back bar in the Salisbury, I suggest you do what the smokers you refer to are going to have to do when the ban comes in....Lump It!
Reply ID 32558
Thanks Mick. Of course, if 3/4 of pubs' customers did lump it then there wouldn't be as many establishments left. FYI I did talk to the smokers that I worked with but they couldn't give two monkeys. How long has the White Hart been non-smoking?
Reply ID 32559
John i think they had a referb during the early part of last week and reopend on tues or weds. I was in there on Friday Night and i have to say (as a smoker) how pleasant it was NOT to be breathing in smoke all the time! Excellent staff (no kids anymore) new comfy seats, and music that you could speak over! as a by the by, I have to agree with you about some smokers being pig headed, although I have once been in a situation where some NON smokers sat down next to us in the smoking section in a restaurant that was 2 thirds empty! When they asked me if i would stop smoking it became apparant to me that they sat next to us deliberatly to become offended. But hey you cant pplease all the people all the time can you?
Reply ID 32566
wow ....... so the White Hart has gone none smoking ....... seems bars and pubs are turning non smoking all over the place now (well not really, but 2 at least)and its not even law yet, so what does that tell you ??? bar owners are actually twigging its a good idea,after years of been scared that no punters would enter their bar as a result of no smoking ...NOW they have thought,'AH.. people go to pubs to drink and meet friends and a non smoking place wont stop them !!! So as from what ive read over the few pages .. is this ... non smokers are of course happy with the new law .... Former smokers understand the smokers point of view, but are still happy about the new law... and smokers agree that smoking damages their own health (although are not convinced of 2nd hand damage to smokers)...some smokers have agreed they actually like being in a non smoking enviroment for then the air is cleaner and liking the fact of no red eyes smelly cloths and hair e.c.t. ........... and now bar/pub owners are turning their establishments non smoking before the law kicks in 7 months time .... SO it seems to me that we are all on to a winner ........ so come on smokers ... like everything ... you will get used to it .. plus if it helped you stop smoking you could save £20,000 in your life time ....oh ... and save your life.
Reply ID 32567
Lifestyle, I agree with your sumation on all but one point. its a bit pedantic really, but stoping smoking WILL NOT save my life but it may make me last longer than i otherwise would! ;)
Reply ID 32572
quote:Yep, a lot of pubs are anticipating the law. Others are taking a commercial decision that there is a demand. So no need to impose a law at all, which has been my point throughout. In my case, being a smoker is not the issue. If they were bannng beer, (a product which I don't drink at all) I'd be similarly in opposition. Regardless of evidence to support such a ban, or not, I suspect many of the non-smokers would take a very different view of being forbidden by law to do something they enjoy.
Originally posted by lifestyle
wow ....... so the White Hart has gone none smoking ....... seems bars and pubs are turning non smoking all over the place now (well not really, but 2 at least)and its not even law yet, so what does that tell you ??? bar owners are actually twigging its a good idea,after years of been scared that no punters would enter their bar as a result of no smoking ...NOW they have thought,'AH.. people go to pubs to drink and meet friends and a non smoking place wont stop them !!! So as from what ive read over the few pages .. is this ... non smokers are of course happy with the new law .... Former smokers understand the smokers point of view, but are still happy about the new law... and smokers agree that smoking damages their own health (although are not convinced of 2nd hand damage to smokers)...some smokers have agreed they actually like being in a non smoking enviroment for then the air is cleaner and liking the fact of no red eyes smelly cloths and hair e.c.t. ........... and now bar/pub owners are turning their establishments non smoking before the law kicks in 7 months time .... SO it seems to me that we are all on to a winner ........ so come on smokers ... like everything ... you will get used to it .. plus if it helped you stop smoking you could save £20,000 in your life time ....oh ... and save your life.
Reply ID 32576
quote:I think that might depend on the effects/inconvenience to others shunt.
Originally posted by shunt Regardless of evidence to support such a ban, or not, I suspect many of the non-smokers would take a very different view of being forbidden by law to do something they enjoy.
Reply ID 32581
quote:When were you last woken at two in the morning by a crowd of oiks, puking up their vindaloo over your car and chanting, " 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.." because they've had one too many fags?[:D]
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:I think that might depend on the effects/inconvenience to others shunt.
Originally posted by shunt Regardless of evidence to support such a ban, or not, I suspect many of the non-smokers would take a very different view of being forbidden by law to do something they enjoy.
Reply ID 32587
quote:Sorry - didn't realise it was your motor [:)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:When were you last woken at two in the morning by a crowd of oiks, puking up their vindaloo over your car and chanting, " 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.." because they've had one too many fags?[:D]
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:I think that might depend on the effects/inconvenience to others shunt.
Originally posted by shunt Regardless of evidence to support such a ban, or not, I suspect many of the non-smokers would take a very different view of being forbidden by law to do something they enjoy.
Reply ID 32588
quote:Does alcohol have that effect on everybody then? I dont think so, it just enhances the behaviour of that type of person. I have never seen my mother drunk chanting ere we go in between vomiting on parked cars. As far as I am aware ciggarettes do not effect individuals differently, other than the type of illness got from them.
Originally posted by shuntquote:When were you last woken at two in the morning by a crowd of oiks, puking up their vindaloo over your car and chanting, " 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.." because they've had one too many fags?[:D]
Originally posted by Leo Densianquote:I think that might depend on the effects/inconvenience to others shunt.
Originally posted by shunt Regardless of evidence to support such a ban, or not, I suspect many of the non-smokers would take a very different view of being forbidden by law to do something they enjoy.
Reply ID 32589
Erm...i may have already said this and been edited, or i may have not actually posted it! Shunt, i have tried the "but cigarettes cause less violence than beer" argument on this very thread. and it didnt seem to make any difference!
Reply ID 32590
That's because the thread is about banning smoking in pubs and not a cigarettes v alcohol competition.
Reply ID 32591
so you dont think that more harm to innocent parties (in Pubs) is caused by alcohol than by smoking (in Pubs) and therefore wouldnt support a ban on drinking in pubs i assume? My guess would be that if you did word association on "smoking" and "pubs" you would get quite a lot of people coming back saying "cigarettes" and "alcohol" im just guessing here you understand! I think the 2 kind of go hand in hand?
Reply ID 32593
quote:Where have I said that? In a pub where people are smoking and drinking, it is possible for all the drinkers to drink and not affect anybody else. The same cannot be said for the smokers.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
so you dont think that more harm to innocent parties is caused by alcohol than by smoking and therefore wouldnt support a ban on drinking in pubs i assume?
Reply ID 32594
That Mr smith is a VERY good point! However, do you not think that a law, stating that a certain element of society CANNOT do that (smoking) in pubs, is a little heavy handed, surely it should be up to the Landlords, owners of wherever, to decide?
Reply ID 32596
But it was in Labour's manifesto. The decision was made by the people of the country.
Reply ID 32599
Well we will see what happens to that particular cop out of an argument at the next election wont we? i wasnt asking who voted for it i was asking YOU if you agreed with my statement?
Reply ID 32603
quote:I can't believe I have to answer that, but no. Alcohol effects different people in different ways and sometimes the same person in different ways, depending on circumstance. However, the effects of someone having smoked on private property do not come to you. As a non-smoker, you have to choose to go to a place which you know you will encounter smoking to be exposed to it in any way whatsoever. To do so, if you object so strongly, suggests that alcohol is already effecting your judgement. Despite it's name, a public house is not public property. You don't own them and smoker or non-smoker, you have no right to demand to use any one of them. The smoker's behaviour, judgement, hormonal balance, reaction times, sense of responsibility, vision, balance, spacial awareness and inhibitions are not impaired as he exits onto the street after a night of heavy smoking, or at least, not as a result of smoking. He will not leave the contents of his stomach for your child to step in the following morning. He will not crash his car, urinate in your doorway, step out in front of traffic, make lewd comments about your wife, stumble into you on the pavement, kick any cans he finds lying about, start a fight, talk loudly under your bedroom window, tell awful jokes to people who don't want to listen, laugh at nothing in particular, think he is cleverer than he actually is, or trip over the wheelie bin. He will not fail to get up for work, frighten the kids, burn the sausages, or miss the toilet bowl. He will not need help to get to bed or forget to lock up. He will not spend the kids music lesson money on a Chinese mini-moto from eBay at four in the morning. He will do nothing that he would not do anyway. Of course not all people who drink, drink to such a level that others suffer these effects, but smoking produces none of them. One day, the smoker's habit might kill him or make him very ill and he might need to use a proportion of the huge amount of tax that he has paid to ease or postpone that day. How does that harm you?
Does alcohol have that effect on everybody then? I dont think so, it just enhances the behaviour of that type of person. I have never seen my mother drunk chanting ere we go in between vomiting on parked cars. As far as I am aware ciggarettes do not effect individuals differently, other than the type of illness got from them.
Reply ID 32604
The bottom line (God I hate that phrase)is that non smokers simply want equality and recognition which has not been present until recently. A true story from my father-in-law about a former colleague who worked in a non-smoking office: The guy was a non-smoker and incensed by the time wasted by the smokers who kept disappearing outside when he had to keep working. He calculated that he was working a minimum of about 1½ hours more per day than the rest. Despite complaining to his manager, nothing was done. One day, when a load of people disappeared for their usual 'smoking break', he got out his newspaper, leant back in his chair and read the sports pages. His manager saw this and gave hime a rollocking for dossing about. 'I'm having my no-smoking break' was the reply. 'When the rest come back, I'll carry on with my work'. The manager threatened disciplinary action but the chap stood his ground. End result was the 'smoking breaks' were stopped.
Reply ID 32606
quote:Agreed. Many companies also had to introduce rules about drinking in lunch-hours too, but smoking in the workplace is a different subject and the issues of choice and imposition are different too.
Originally posted by Leo Densian
The bottom line (God I hate that phrase)is that non smokers simply want equality and recognition which has not been present until recently. A true story from my father-in-law about a former colleague who worked in a non-smoking office: The guy was a non-smoker and incensed by the time wasted by the smokers who kept disappearing outside when he had to keep working. He calculated that he was working a minimum of about 1½ hours more per day than the rest. Despite complaining to his manager, nothing was done. One day, when a load of people disappeared for their usual 'smoking break', he got out his newspaper, leant back in his chair and read the sports pages. His manager saw this and gave hime a rollocking for dossing about. 'I'm having my no-smoking break' was the reply. 'When the rest come back, I'll carry on with my work'. The manager threatened disciplinary action but the chap stood his ground. End result was the 'smoking breaks' were stopped.
Reply ID 32608
Shunt, you are right, smoking does not make you the funniest person in the world, but drinking does! [:D] Anyone out there blue in the face yet?[:(]
Reply ID 32609
Leo I couldnt agree more, That a smoker is allowed to have more breaks than a non smoker is utterly unacceptable. However, we are not talking about work here are we? This is the pub, and as mentioned above somewhere that you have a choice about going to or not (unlike work, other than in some cases!!)
Reply ID 32611
quote:Not specifically, no. We are talking..and talking..and Oh b***ocks, I'm with you Victor [:(][:(][:(]
Originally posted by Mad Mick However, we are not talking about work here are we?
Reply ID 32612
quote:Yep, but smoking is a subject which propaganda has made strictly taboo to argue in it's favour, which is why I do, however futile. Realistically, it won't make a difference to this, but perhaps my arguments will be remembered when it is drink, or something like it. I would add though, that it is only in this context of a leisure industry and on private property that I disagree. I have been entirely in favour of restrictions in circumstances where the non-smoker has no choice, or is unfairly disadvantaged. I tell you what let's go out and have a few drinks. Then we can all seem really funny.[:o)][:D]
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
Shunt, you are right, smoking does not make you the funniest person in the world, but drinking does! [:D] Anyone out there blue in the face yet?[:(]
Reply ID 32613
Until a year ago, all smokers could go into any pub in Hertford and puff away to their heart's content. What choice did the non-smoker have? Like it or lump it.
Reply ID 32614
Ok but if we are going to a pub, will it be a smoking or non smoking one?
Reply ID 32615
quote:John. Why do you think it is your right to dictate what other people do for pleasure on private property? Is it our right to tell you what to do in yours?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Until a year ago, all smokers could go into any pub in Hertford and puff away to their heart's content. What choice did the non-smoker have? Like it or lump it.
Reply ID 32617
quote:Non-smoking, as we are a mixed crowd.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Ok but if we are going to a pub, will it be a smoking or non smoking one?
Reply ID 32619
will anyone mind if i nip outside for a quickie? furthermore will anyone mind if i gat absolutely Wan***d at the table and then throw up down myself?
Reply ID 32620
quote:I dont really like any of the non smoking pubs [}:)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:Non-smoking, as we are a mixed crowd.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Ok but if we are going to a pub, will it be a smoking or non smoking one?
Reply ID 32623
Victor are you aware that the white hart is now NON smoking?
Reply ID 32624
quote:Oh good grief![:D]
Originally posted by Victor Meldrewquote:I dont really like any of the non smoking pubs [}:)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:Non-smoking, as we are a mixed crowd.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Ok but if we are going to a pub, will it be a smoking or non smoking one?
Reply ID 32634
quote:I always thought it was as the regulars were not old enough to by fags! I will have a look in on Wednesday as am on a night night booze break.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Victor are you aware that the white hart is now NON smoking?
Reply ID 32637
quote:Surely the fact that they are called "public houses" gives a clue
Originally posted by shuntquote:John. Why do you think it is your right to dictate what other people do for pleasure on private property? Is it our right to tell you what to do in yours?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Until a year ago, all smokers could go into any pub in Hertford and puff away to their heart's content. What choice did the non-smoker have? Like it or lump it.
Reply ID 32642
As i have stated elsewhere on this site! anyone can be stopped from entering or being served in any lisenced premises without reason being given therefore not PUBLIC!
Reply ID 32648
quote:Although a licensee has the right to refuse to serve anyone with giving a reason, the fact that the premises are described as "public houses" gives the clue that they are open to the general public. They are not private premises
Originally posted by Mad Mick
As i have stated elsewhere on this site! anyone can be stopped from entering or being served in any lisenced premises without reason being given therefore not PUBLIC!
Reply ID 32653
quote:Yes they are. The license is an immunity from prosecution for the sale of alcoholic beverages only. The premises are private. The view that they are not is a misconception exploited by the anti-smoking lobby. You do not own the pub you drink in or have any rights within it, including any right to be there. You may be asked to leave, refused entry or service at any time, without explanation.
Originally posted by buzzquote:Although a licensee has the right to refuse to serve anyone with giving a reason, the fact that the premises are described as "public houses" gives the clue that they are open to the general public. They are not private premises
Originally posted by Mad Mick
As i have stated elsewhere on this site! anyone can be stopped from entering or being served in any lisenced premises without reason being given therefore not PUBLIC!
Reply ID 32659
quote:Yes, but highly unlikely. They are there to make as much money as possible within the constraints of the law.
Originally posted by shunt
Yes they are. The license is an immunity from prosecution for the sale of alcoholic beverages only. The premises are private. The view that they are not is a misconception exploited by the anti-smoking lobby. You do not own the pub you drink in or have any rights within it, including any right to be there. You may be asked to leave, refused entry or service at any time, without explanation.
Reply ID 32661
Pubs are no more public than shops. They are private premises where you are invited to take advantage of what's on offer.
Reply ID 32662
quote:Like a any privately run business on private premises, which, in this case, is often also a private home too, then? I've barred people for many reasons, not relating to licensing law, including sexism, racism, flatulence, unsuitable dress, the repeated playing of one jukebox tune, swearing, tuneless whistling and unwanted sexual advances. It is not uncommon and anyone who has run a pub, frequently makes a personal decision on what is acceptable to them on their own premises, in their company and in their home.
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:Yes, but highly unlikely. They are there to make as much money as possible within the constraints of the law.
Originally posted by shunt
Yes they are. The license is an immunity from prosecution for the sale of alcoholic beverages only. The premises are private. The view that they are not is a misconception exploited by the anti-smoking lobby. You do not own the pub you drink in or have any rights within it, including any right to be there. You may be asked to leave, refused entry or service at any time, without explanation.
Reply ID 32663
And they are no less public than workplaces you are invited in to work. However, no one is complaining about a smoking ban in the workplace. A touch of double standards there.
Reply ID 32664
quote:Most workplaces are not based on a leisure activity or carried out in the home of the employer. To expect to smoke in most work environments would be as daft as expecting to have a drink or operate your computer from a windsurfer. Now, move to the pub. Is it still daft to expect to have a drink? However, nobody says you have to smoke, or allow it in your own pub, or go to a pub that does allow it, just as nobody says that you must shop at Morrisons, rather than Waitrose or Tesco. If you want to shop at Morrisons, would it be reasonable to pass a law that says both those stores must become Morrisons, because there isn't one for you to shop at locally?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
And they are no less public than workplaces you are invited in to work. However, no one is complaining about a smoking ban in the workplace. A touch of double standards there.
Reply ID 32665
quote:Not unlike running a forum then!
Originally posted by shunt
Like a any privately run business on private premises, which, in this case, is often also a private home too, then? I've barred people for many reasons, not relating to licensing law, including sexism, racism, flatulence, unsuitable dress, the repeated playing of one jukebox tune, swearing, tuneless whistling and unwanted sexual advances. It is not uncommon and anyone who has run a pub, frequently makes a personal decision on what is acceptable to them on their own premises, in their company and in their home.
Reply ID 32667
quote:[:D]
Originally posted by Adminquote:Not unlike running a forum then!
Originally posted by shunt
Like a any privately run business on private premises, which, in this case, is often also a private home too, then? I've barred people for many reasons, not relating to licensing law, including sexism, racism, flatulence, unsuitable dress, the repeated playing of one jukebox tune, swearing, tuneless whistling and unwanted sexual advances. It is not uncommon and anyone who has run a pub, frequently makes a personal decision on what is acceptable to them on their own premises, in their company and in their home.
Reply ID 32684
Yes steve, the government is kinda like the way you run this forum...mustnt say anything to upset people now must we?
Reply ID 32686
quote:Ouch! Mick's getting madder by the post!
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Yes steve, the government is kinda like the way you run this forum...mustnt say anything to upset people now must we?
Reply ID 32729
See for yourself http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/files/Smoke-free_Premises_and_Enforcement_Regulations.pdf
Reply ID 33310
Apparently, Baroosh is closing for 12-days during January for a refurbishment. It will be opening as a non-smoking bar. Hooray! I must say that coming home from a non-smoking bar like The Snug with fresh smelling clothes realy highlights how awful the stench is after an evening in a heavy smoking pub.
Reply ID 33351
Are they building a shelter out the back for the smokers as with other McMullen pubs? If the cancer don't get 'em the hypothermia will!
Reply ID 33358
Another reason not to go in "Prentiousland" Baroosh then. I aint giving up so stuff em all!!!
Reply ID 34472
quote:ha ha nice one john.there is a canopy out the back at the mo but there getting a load of fancy stuff coming over from italy to keep "them" all dry?? got to keep all the "puffers"happy[:D]
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Are they building a shelter out the back for the smokers as with other McMullen pubs? If the cancer don't get 'em the hypothermia will!
Reply ID 34628
It should be interesting come July. I spoke to a smoker on Saturday who assured me he would ignore the ban. What will happen if 100 people in a pub start smoking?
Reply ID 34630
quote:The landlord will get a hefty fine, so it should be self-policing.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
It should be interesting come July. I spoke to a smoker on Saturday who assured me he would ignore the ban. What will happen if 100 people in a pub start smoking?
Reply ID 34641
quote:Not only would there be a hefty fine, but loss of licence would be possible and the smokers themselves would be prosecuted.
Originally posted by Ray_by_the_Beanequote:The landlord will get a hefty fine, so it should be self-policing.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
It should be interesting come July. I spoke to a smoker on Saturday who assured me he would ignore the ban. What will happen if 100 people in a pub start smoking?
Reply ID 34643
Visited Scotland and Italy in recent months where i witnessed not one person ignoring the ban . If it works in Glasgow and Naples ,lets be honest , Hertford's not going to be a problem .
Reply ID 34645
quote:Very similar in Spain last year - but I did notice that the beach that was immaculate the year before was littered with fag ends this time round.
Originally posted by Donostia
Visited Scotland and Italy in recent months where i witnessed not one person ignoring the ban . If it works in Glasgow and Naples ,lets be honest , Hertford's not going to be a problem .
Reply ID 34646
Its a bit of a half hearted affair in Spain , bars under a certain size in sq metres ( cant remember size ) are allowed to opt out the ban .
Reply ID 34746
quote:Not so much half hearted, but approached with greater sense. There is a notice on the door of each establishment to state whether smoking is permitted or not. Whatever the notice says, is adhered to by the clientelle. Thus, the Spaniards have choice. In practice, even in the smoking bars, one area becomes known as the place to smoke and the rest of the bar has no ashtrays. It is almost unknown for a Spaniard to light up in the area which is non-smoking, even though the segregation is not formalised or enforced.
Originally posted by Donostia
Its a bit of a half hearted affair in Spain , bars under a certain size in sq metres ( cant remember size ) are allowed to opt out the ban .
Reply ID 34793
quote:thats an easy one the lot of them would be asked to leave[:D] as for the smoker you met sat on he would be smoking outside if i was working there[:D]
Originally posted by JohnSmith
It should be interesting come July. I spoke to a smoker on Saturday who assured me he would ignore the ban. What will happen if 100 people in a pub start smoking?
Reply ID 34802
quote:I agree. This kind of attitude is not acceptable and not representative of most smokers. It doesn't matter whether a premises has chosen to ban smoking or has been forced to. Once it is done, it is reasonable for a non-smoker to claim accidental exposure to smoke without consent and the majority of smokers would not wish that.
Originally posted by doormanstuquote:thats an easy one the lot of them would be asked to leave[:D] as for the smoker you met sat on he would be smoking outside if i was working there[:D]
Originally posted by JohnSmith
It should be interesting come July. I spoke to a smoker on Saturday who assured me he would ignore the ban. What will happen if 100 people in a pub start smoking?
Reply ID 34806
I would say that it is fairly typical of the smokers I have come across. Another fine example today. I was sat on a train at Hertford North. There was about 3 minutes to go before the train as due to leave. A typical smoker wanted to finish his cigarette. Knowing that he wasn't allowed to smoke on the train he decided to stand on the platform and finish his fag. Whereabouts on the platform? Right outside the open doors of the carriage. Needless to say, the smoke managed to be drawn straight into the carriage. I've always found it amazing how the fumes from a single cigarette can fill so much space.
Reply ID 34808
John, when you mentioned this to him, what was his response? James.
Reply ID 34809
I didn't mention it to him as I couldn't guarantee that him and his mate wouldn't want to start a fight or somesuch especially as I had my nine year old son with me.
Reply ID 34813
quote:That's because cigarette smoke is a gas and a gas will always expand to fill the space it is given. That's why no-smoking sections in Bars & restaurants are a waste of time.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
... I've always found it amazing how the fumes from a single cigarette can fill so much space.
Reply ID 34814
quote:Sorry, but this is incorrect [:)] Smoke is a [url="http://www.answers.com/topic/vapor"]vapour[/url] containing fine particles of carbon produced by combustion. Cigarettes do indeed produce quite a number of gases, but smoke isn't one of them. http://www.answers.com/topic/vapor"]vapour[/url]
Originally posted by thefair1973
smoke is a gas
Reply ID 34815
quote:Give him a break - I would need more than a fag to travel on one of those things. What do you smell of when you get off a train? Something other than cigarette smoke I guess............
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I would say that it is fairly typical of the smokers I have come across. Another fine example today. I was sat on a train at Hertford North. There was about 3 minutes to go before the train as due to leave. A typical smoker wanted to finish his cigarette. Knowing that he wasn't allowed to smoke on the train he decided to stand on the platform and finish his fag. Whereabouts on the platform? Right outside the open doors of the carriage. Needless to say, the smoke managed to be drawn straight into the carriage. I've always found it amazing how the fumes from a single cigarette can fill so much space.
Reply ID 34818
quote:Of course,if trains still had a smoking compartment, this chap's inadvertant offence against your sensitivity, would not have happened. What is almost certain is that he was unaware of your discomfort and the aroma which reached you within the carriage would be sufficiently dissipated to have no physical effect. I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I would say that it is fairly typical of the smokers I have come across. Another fine example today. I was sat on a train at Hertford North. There was about 3 minutes to go before the train as due to leave. A typical smoker wanted to finish his cigarette. Knowing that he wasn't allowed to smoke on the train he decided to stand on the platform and finish his fag. Whereabouts on the platform? Right outside the open doors of the carriage. Needless to say, the smoke managed to be drawn straight into the carriage. I've always found it amazing how the fumes from a single cigarette can fill so much space.
Reply ID 34820
quote:I think people who stand around with bags of lavishly vinegared chips should have to share them by law. Nothing is more tormenting IMHO than the smell of somebody else's chips. Do smokers feel the same way about fags when somebody else lights up?
Originally posted by shunt I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Reply ID 34821
quote:Oh well, that makes it alright then. I'll remember that in future and think myself lucky.
Originally posted by shunt [br Of course,if trains still had a smoking compartment, this chap's inadvertant offence against your sensitivity, would not have happened. What is almost certain is that he was unaware of your discomfort and the aroma which reached you within the carriage would be sufficiently dissipated to have no physical effect. I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Reply ID 34823
quote:Yeah I often have to wash all my clothes and/or hair because I've been standing near to someone eating chips?
Originally posted by shunt I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Reply ID 34824
I think you must be standing too close...[;)]
Reply ID 34825
quote:About as often as you'd have to by exposure to the vague aroma of a cigarette at a distance. If, however, you chose to spend hours in a chip shop, you'd reek of fish and burned peanut oil. Luckily, nobody forces you to do so, or to attend any premises which allows smoking either. If you do make either choice, you have by inferrence give consent to that exposure.
Originally posted by ~Sarah~quote:Yeah I often have to wash all my clothes and/or hair because I've been standing near to someone eating chips?
Originally posted by shunt I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Reply ID 34826
Roll on July![:D]
Reply ID 34827
quote:I do not intend to cause you offence John. I am however suggesting that the degree of annoyance may be out of proportion with the level of actual nuisance. Smoking is an aggressively emotional subject for many non-smokers, whereas it is not for smokers, who on the whole, have accepted each restriction placed upon then with a resigned shrug. Curious, since they are supposed to be motivated by blind addiction.[:D]
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:Oh well, that makes it alright then. I'll remember that in future and think myself lucky.
Originally posted by shunt [br Of course,if trains still had a smoking compartment, this chap's inadvertant offence against your sensitivity, would not have happened. What is almost certain is that he was unaware of your discomfort and the aroma which reached you within the carriage would be sufficiently dissipated to have no physical effect. I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Reply ID 34828
Yeah it will be warm enough to stand outside the pubs (which will have there doors open?) and smoke!!
Reply ID 34829
quote:Precisely my point Mick. As private, enclosed areas, designated for the purpose and which non-smokers can easily avoid are being hounded out of existence, smokers are increasingly being shoved into public areas such as the street, where the non-smoker may not be able to make the choice of avoidence, as John found. I am not so concerned about the infringement of the rights of smokers, but the rights of non-smokers and owners of private premises, i.e. pubs. It is those groups which lose most control over personal choice by the ban.
Originally posted by Mad Mick
Yeah it will be warm enough to stand outside the pubs (which will have there doors open?) and smoke!!
Reply ID 34831
quote:Couldnt agree more, but you can already enjoy a smoke free drink in at least 4 bars in Hertford and probably more to come before July as they are all reaslising that it will not effect their takings. It may even increase some pub food takings. Heres a website for all you smokers to prepare for next winter http://www.thenorthface.com [8D]
Originally posted by buzz
Roll on July![:D]
Reply ID 34833
I think you will find that pubs are accommodating the smokers - building external shelters with heaters and light. Something that the smoker was never given the option of. Smoking is something of an issue for non-smokers as it is the non-smoker that is affected by the output of the smoker without discretion. Roll on the day that I can sit in a cafe and eat a bacon sarnie without some inconsiderate smoker forcing their obnoxious fumes on me.
Reply ID 34834
I've been told buy one of regular bar staff that, for the smokers among you, the White Horse will be holding a Smokeathon on Sat 30th June.
Reply ID 34836
quote:I think people who stand around with bags of lavishly vinegared chips should have to share them by law. Nothing is more tormenting IMHO than the smell of somebody else's chips. Do smokers feel the same way about fags when somebody else lights up? [/quot YES!!!!!!!
Originally posted by nora batty
[quote]Originally posted by shunt I suspect that if he had paused on the platform to finish a bag of lavishly vinegared chips, the aroma would have been equally detectable and similarly unharmful.
Reply ID 34847
quote:I think the difference is that if the smoker objected to the smell of bacon sandwiches, he would just go elsewhere for his cigarette, rather than banning everybody else from eating bacon, or insisting on a law to ban cafes from allowing them to be consumed. Would you feel happy to stand outside in a little shelter to eat your sandwhich to avoid offending vegetarians, for instance? I doubt it. I would imagine that you would expect a person with such sensibilities to dine in a vegetarian venue, but not force you to do so too.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I think you will find that pubs are accommodating the smokers - building external shelters with heaters and light. Something that the smoker was never given the option of. Smoking is something of an issue for non-smokers as it is the non-smoker that is affected by the output of the smoker without discretion. Roll on the day that I can sit in a cafe and eat a bacon sarnie without some inconsiderate smoker forcing their obnoxious fumes on me.
Reply ID 34848
quote:I'm not aware of bacon sandwiches being a major cause of death in this country [:D]
Originally posted by shunt
I think the difference is that if the smoker objected to the smell of bacon sandwiches, he would just go elsewhere for his cigarette, rather than banning everybody else from eating bacon, or insisting on a law to ban cafes from allowing them to be consumed. Would you feel happy to stand outside in a little shelter to eat your sandwhich to avoid offending vegetarians, for instance? I doubt it. I would imagine that you would expect a person with such sensibilities to dine in a vegetarian venue, but not force you to do so too.
Reply ID 34849
quote:Only if consumed to excess and only of the person consuming them. [:D] However, since there are no recorded deaths from passive smoking to date, the latter could also be said of smoking. I also don't think that anyone would think it reasonable to ban bacon sandwiches because of the effect of colesterol on the person eating them. I think most people would consider the risk to be theirs to take.
Originally posted by Stevequote:I'm not aware of bacon sandwiches being a major cause of death in this country [:D]
Originally posted by shunt
I think the difference is that if the smoker objected to the smell of bacon sandwiches, he would just go elsewhere for his cigarette, rather than banning everybody else from eating bacon, or insisting on a law to ban cafes from allowing them to be consumed. Would you feel happy to stand outside in a little shelter to eat your sandwhich to avoid offending vegetarians, for instance? I doubt it. I would imagine that you would expect a person with such sensibilities to dine in a vegetarian venue, but not force you to do so too.
Reply ID 34850
quote:I thought Roy Castle died of lung cancer caused by passive smoking?
Originally posted by shunt However, since there are no recorded deaths from passive smoking to date, the latter could also be said of smoking. I also don't think that anyone would think it reasonable to ban bacon sandwiches because of the effect of colesterol on the person eating them. I think most people would consider the risk to be theirs to take.
Reply ID 34851
quote:He claimed to have done. I would think that dying of lung cancer when you have never smoked seems tragically unfair, because it is assumed to be exclusively a smokers disease. That is a misconception. A lot of the current anti-smoking lobby uses Roy's celebrity high profile campaign as an example, although the stats for non-smoking cancer cases with exposure to passive smoking are identical to those without. About 5-600 non-smokers a year die of lung cancer, with or without exposure to passive smoking. Poor Roy was likely to have been just one of them.
Originally posted by nora battyquote:I thought Roy Castle died of lung cancer caused by passive smoking?
Originally posted by shunt However, since there are no recorded deaths from passive smoking to date, the latter could also be said of smoking. I also don't think that anyone would think it reasonable to ban bacon sandwiches because of the effect of colesterol on the person eating them. I think most people would consider the risk to be theirs to take.
Reply ID 34855
So, why ban smoking in the workplace?
Reply ID 34856
quote:What on earth are you going on about? How can you turn a comment about inconsiderate people smoking while other people are eating into banning bacon sandwiches? What type of fags have you been smoking?
Originally posted by shunt
I think the difference is that if the smoker objected to the smell of bacon sandwiches, he would just go elsewhere for his cigarette, rather than banning everybody else from eating bacon, or insisting on a law to ban cafes from allowing them to be consumed. Would you feel happy to stand outside in a little shelter to eat your sandwhich to avoid offending vegetarians, for instance? I doubt it. I would imagine that you would expect a person with such sensibilities to dine in a vegetarian venue, but not force you to do so too.
Reply ID 34857
quote:It makes the insurance cheaper, is the actual reason. You also can't escape smoking in your place of work, hence it is plainly unfair on non-smokers to allow it.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
So, why ban smoking in the workplace?
Reply ID 34858
You could go an work somewhere else. That seems to be your stock answer for the 3/4 of the adult population in the country. And what is there to avoid?
Reply ID 34859
quote:Oh come on John. Surely you can see that someone partaking of an activity in a place where it is permitted is less "inconsiderate" than somebody who chooses to eat his bacon sandwich (or drink his pint) in such a place and then complain? If the smoker was smoking in a place where it was not expected or permitted, that would be different and that would be "inconsiderate". Smokers aren't following you around or breaking into your home to smoke. It's virtually unkown for a smoker to smoke where it is not permitted. You are choosing to go where you already know they are.
Originally posted by JohnSmithquote:What on earth are you going on about? How can you turn a comment about inconsiderate people smoking while other people are eating into banning bacon sandwiches? What type of fags have you been smoking?
Originally posted by shunt
I think the difference is that if the smoker objected to the smell of bacon sandwiches, he would just go elsewhere for his cigarette, rather than banning everybody else from eating bacon, or insisting on a law to ban cafes from allowing them to be consumed. Would you feel happy to stand outside in a little shelter to eat your sandwhich to avoid offending vegetarians, for instance? I doubt it. I would imagine that you would expect a person with such sensibilities to dine in a vegetarian venue, but not force you to do so too.
Reply ID 34860
quote:No, I have never used that argument where it relates to anything other than a leisure venue of a non-essential nature. Annoyance is what there is to avoid. Most smokers do not wish to annoy.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
You could go an work somewhere else. That seems to be your stock answer for the 3/4 of the adult population in the country. And what is there to avoid?
Reply ID 34861
quote:Tell that to the pigs.
I'm not aware of bacon sandwiches being a major cause of death in this country.
Reply ID 34862
quote:[:D][:D][:D]
Originally posted by CSPquote:Tell that to the pigs.
I'm not aware of bacon sandwiches being a major cause of death in this country.
Reply ID 34865
There seems to be 2 opinions on this. There are arguments for and against, see google "passive smoking deaths" for instance. I did also google passive bacon smell deaths, but drew a blank! Please just face the facts, its a dirty, smelly, death inducing habit, that would be banned completely were it not for the tax implications. Review study finds association between tobacco smoking and increased risk of tuberculosis nächste Meldung 17.01.2007 Link also found between passive smoking and indoor air pollution and TB Tuberculosis (TB) is an infectious disease that causes an estimated 2 million deaths each year. The majority of those deaths occur in developing countries, home to more than 900 million of the world's 1.1 billion smokers. The European Union's 27 member states are being urged to copy Ireland and ban smoking in all indoor public spaces. Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou is also raising the idea of EU-wide legislation to end passive smoking outside the home. Officials say passive smoking kills 79,000 Europeans per year - about one in 10 of all tobacco-related deaths. And so on and so on..................
Reply ID 34866
You are absoutely right Victor. The subject is confusing and inconclusive. For instance, TB is known to be associated with urban poverty. That it occurs more frequently in developing countries, is to be expected. That smoking is more common in the same countries may not be coincidence, but it is more likely to be than not. It would be easy to pluck this statistic out of context and use it to demonstrate a link between TB and passive smoking, true or not. My point is that the anti-smoking lobby treats many such unproven theories as fact. Almost every representation they have used is pure assumption, made because it supports their cause, but the lobby is so active that they have gained official and political support. Personally, I'd prefer nobody smoked, simply because of the one confirmed fact;- It kills smokers. I'm not comfortable about the acceptance of loss of civil liberty on the strength of emotive lobbying and distortion of information even if that does bring us closer to my own ideals. The two are different principles.
Reply ID 34867
Neither argument deters from the fact that it is impossible (at present) to have a sociable cigarette in a mixed (smoking and non) environment. Drinking alcohol, eating chips or bacon sarnies ect, ect in public is not anti social, however passing wind is, but that has never been claimed to kill either.
Reply ID 34869
quote:There are many activities which are incompatible with others and almost everything can be deemed to be antisocial when out of place, including those mentioned. However, since we are talking about banning one group's activity on private premises to satisfy the wishes of another, when that activity is already segregated, there can be no moral justification. As things stand currently, there is no reason for any non-smoker to be exposed to smoke in pubs unless they choose to be. It is as much an imposition as a vegetarian group banning the bacon sandwich, or a temperance society member insisting pubs don't serve alcohol so that they may attend premises which they now forced to comply to their own taste and belief. I remind you all again;- these are privately owned premises, not a public place.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
Neither argument deters from the fact that it is impossible (at present) to have a sociable cigarette in a mixed (smoking and non) environment. Drinking alcohol, eating chips or bacon sarnies ect, ect in public is not anti social, however passing wind is, but that has never been claimed to kill either.
Reply ID 34870
quote:Sorry to stray from a fascinating argument here ....but are you absolutely sure about this one Shunt!! Was Doris Stokes involved?
Originally posted by shuntquote:He claimed to have done. I would think that dying of lung cancer when you have never smoked seems tragically unfair, because it is assumed to be exclusively a smokers disease. That is a misconception. A lot of the current anti-smoking lobby uses Roy's celebrity high profile campaign as an example, although the stats for non-smoking cancer cases with exposure to passive smoking are identical to those without. About 5-600 non-smokers a year die of lung cancer, with or without exposure to passive smoking. Poor Roy was likely to have been just one of them.
Originally posted by nora battyquote:I thought Roy Castle died of lung cancer caused by passive smoking?
Originally posted by shunt However, since there are no recorded deaths from passive smoking to date, the latter could also be said of smoking. I also don't think that anyone would think it reasonable to ban bacon sandwiches because of the effect of colesterol on the person eating them. I think most people would consider the risk to be theirs to take.
Reply ID 34872
Shunt, do you really think that eating bacon sandwiches and chips is anti-social?
Reply ID 34873
quote:Only for the pigs!!! Sorry didn't read all posts before replying...........
Originally posted by Stevequote:I'm not aware of bacon sandwiches being a major cause of death in this country [:D]
Originally posted by shunt
I think the difference is that if the smoker objected to the smell of bacon sandwiches, he would just go elsewhere for his cigarette, rather than banning everybody else from eating bacon, or insisting on a law to ban cafes from allowing them to be consumed. Would you feel happy to stand outside in a little shelter to eat your sandwhich to avoid offending vegetarians, for instance? I doubt it. I would imagine that you would expect a person with such sensibilities to dine in a vegetarian venue, but not force you to do so too.
Reply ID 34874
Roy may have been correct. However, at the time of his death, it was assumed that all non-smoking lung cancer patients were victims of passive smoking in advance of any research. Since, it has been found that there is no higher incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers who have been exposed to passive smoking, than in those who have not. I'm sure that if one who has never smoked is dying of a desease which is associated with smokers, it seems horribly unfair and it is easy to point the finger at those who smoked in his presence. In the absence of any detailed research, it seemed the only plausible explanation. Unfortunately, the celebrity status, the heart tugging tragedy, and effectiveness of his campaign, distorted the field across the globe to such an extent that even some of the "official" warnings on packets are not accurate. Ironically, it was the same campaign which promted the commissioning of the study which eventually showed against Roy. However, in the years which those studies took to complete, law had already acted on the original assumption and remains in place. The same assumption is responsible for the evengelistic aggression towards smokers, which though everybody knew smoking was not healthy for them, were not persecuted and harrassed in the way they are now. Out of this have come some good laws in segragating smokers from inadvertantly inconveniencing non-smokers, which was always unreasonable, even though most non-smokers didn't see it as such before the health scares. I remember a non-smoking young woman snuggling up to me and telling me how sexy she found smell of tobacco. That would be unimaginable now that all of us (even smokers) having been conditioned against a positive association. The smell of smoke was not "disgusting" once, we have made it so. There has been a marked drop in the number of long term smokers (even I have abandoned my addiction). That also is a good thing. However, democracy is not freedom if the loudest voice is the only one heard.
Reply ID 34875
quote:It would be if you were a conciencious vegetarian. If those vegetarians entered the cafe knowing that they served bacon, sat next to you and harassed you through your meal, you'd consider them unreasonable. This is what non-smokers do to smokers.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
Shunt, do you really think that eating bacon sandwiches and chips is anti-social?
Reply ID 34879
I think you are clutching at straws now, you are also generalising that all non-smokers harass smokers, which is unjust. Plus if they were such conciencious vegetarians, they would never eat in anywhere that served bacon.
Reply ID 34886
quote:Not all non-smokers do harass smokers. I've recently sat next someone chewing the gum stuff, offered me some, I said I would move if it was a problem and he said no. Then a nice Gentleman asked if I would use another ashtray as the smoke was blowing into his eyes and said that if the actual act of smoking bothered him he would not go into a pub. It's only the one's that feel the need to preach at us happy smokers that are very irritating. If I didn't like a particular practice I would keep away from it.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
I think you are clutching at straws now, you are also generalising that all non-smokers harass smokers, which is unjust. Plus if they were such conciencious vegetarians, they would never eat in anywhere that served bacon.
Reply ID 34887
quote:That was really my point. Non-smokers do expect to go to places where smokers are and insist those places are modified, even in law, even on private premises, exclusively to their own point of view. If that is not harrassment, I'm not sure what is. To a smoker, it feels like he is being followed around by militant evangelists, who he has no wish to offend, but just will not leave him in peace. (please insert "some" before the words "non-smokers")
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
I think you are clutching at straws now, you are also generalising that all non-smokers harass smokers, which is unjust. Plus if they were such conciencious vegetarians, they would never eat in anywhere that served bacon.
Reply ID 34888
You are generalising again.. A certain number of lobbyists campaigned to get smoking in public places banned, not all smokers. I think you will find that prior to the ban the majority of non smokers (me included) did not worry about it. However since the announcement, have been looking forward to going home smoke free.
Reply ID 34891
quote:Thank you Victor. That is my point exactly on two counts. "a certain number of lobbyists" being one and "public places" being the other. This is not "public places". If it were, it would have my full support.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
You are generalising again.. A certain number of lobbyists campaigned to get smoking in public places banned, not all smokers. I think you will find that prior to the ban the majority of non smokers (me included) did not worry about it. However since the announcement, have been looking forward to going home smoke free.
Reply ID 34893
Sorry, I said certain, that can be any number small or large. In my book a public place is where the public congregate. You should run for parliament................
Reply ID 34894
Sorry Victor. Spotted my mistake too late and was editing while you posted your reply.
Reply ID 34898
I'm not going to say anything here that hasnt already been said. I believe in freedom of choice, its as plain and simple as that.
Reply ID 34902
But in excercising your freedom of choice, you are removing freedom for others. There's two sorts of freedom - freedom from and freedom to.
Reply ID 34903
quote:And then theres free from....... Free from Smoke !!!
Originally posted by nora batty
But in excercising your freedom of choice, you are removing freedom for others. There's two sorts of freedom - freedom from and freedom to.
Reply ID 34904
quote:That is a fair definition in some cases, but a private premises being available to the public does not denote ownership by the public. There is no reason to enter a pub, except to partake of the activities within. If those activities are not to your taste, you do not have to go there anyway, in your normal course of activity. In reality, market forces decided what those activities were and there was already a shift in demand, leading to such venues as the Snug and the Hillside. However, the smoking pubs were not empty and in combination premises, the non-smoking sections were still often under-used as non-smokers chose to mix. I still believe this law is indicative of a major shift in blind acceptance by the British public and it's government, which, though trivial in itself, has far reaching consequences on more important issues. It's one of many tiny, but dangerous, breaches of the moral principle of freedom in our society.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
Sorry, I said certain, that can be any number small or large. In my book a public place is where the public congregate. You should run for parliament................
Reply ID 34905
quote:How is a smoker, on private premises, removing your freedom?
Originally posted by nora batty
But in excercising your freedom of choice, you are removing freedom for others. There's two sorts of freedom - freedom from and freedom to.
Reply ID 34906
I was always taught at school that the definition of freedom was being free to do what you wanted as long as you didn't restrict other people's freedom in doing so.
Reply ID 34908
Your use of the word private is if not incorrect, misleading, I am struggling to find an explanation where the word private means that most individuals are welcomed in off of the street.
Reply ID 34910
quote:Therein lies the problem. The perception of pubs is very different than the reality. The public often sees them as public, whereas in reality, they are not. A pub is basically a party at which the alcohol is sold and the guests are not invited individually by name. Because the sale of alcohol led so frequently to public disorder beyond their walls, certain restrictions were placed upon the sale of that alcohol. The building itself remains private premises and the open invitation to "gatecrash" does not change that. You still have no automatic right to enter or be served in a pub and though open, your attendance is still by invitation. The licensing laws apply to the sale of alcohol, whether or not the sale is in a pub or other premises and is only dependent on whether the alcohol is sold to the guests, not whether or not they are invited individually. Hence pub remains as "private" as if you held an "open house" in your own home, but with a paid bar.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
Your use of the word private is if not incorrect, misleading, I am struggling to find an explanation where the word private means that most individuals are welcomed in off of the street.
Reply ID 34913
So even though a bar can be populated by members of the general public, you are stating that its not deemed as a public place. A pint of what you are on please!!
Reply ID 34915
quote:No more so than if I held a house party and issued an open invitation. My house would then be populated by members of the public, but it wouldn't become a public place, even if I did it every day. If I did that or sold alcohol, I'd soon be prosecuted. The licence is an immunity from such prosecution, issued in return for compliance with certain conditions relating to orderly behaviour and non-disturbance of others. If a publican decides not to unlock his door, or states that he is closed to you, or everybody, he is perfectly at liberty to do so (assuming ownership). How is that public? The pub is possibly the last of the "live and work" cottage industries to survive, albeit under pressure. This law changes that in one stroke.
So even though a bar can be populated by members of the general public, you are stating that its not deemed as a public place. A pint of what you are on please!!
Reply ID 34916
A pub is a private place open to the public. Damn those semantics! You can be thrown out of a private place but not from a public one!
Reply ID 34918
quote:To be absolutely pedantic, you can be thrown out of a public place too, just not for no good reason.[:D]
Originally posted by Steve
A pub is a private place open to the public. Damn those semantics! You can be thrown out of a private place but not from a public one!
Reply ID 34939
isn't pub short for "public house"?
Reply ID 34948
quote:Yet, but it's actually a private house open to the public. Calling it a Privy was thought to be a bad idea though! [:D]
Originally posted by Bengeobabe
isn't pub short for "public house"?
Reply ID 34949
I think I need a cigarette....
Reply ID 34956
quote:if that doesn't kill you this thread might!
Originally posted by Leo Densian
I think I need a cigarette....
Reply ID 34964
Even as one of the main protagonists of this thread I'm growing somewhat weary of it. Maybe we should call a truce on this one as I can't see the two sides seeing eye to eye. We must have something better to discuss. Hopefully james007 won't reignite it (no pun intended) by giving the come on to another of the female forumites [;)]
Reply ID 34969
quote:Yes - this must be one of the longest threads with no particular information - surley only the Hillside (sorry Justin) could have beaten it.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Even as one of the main protagonists of this thread I'm growing somewhat weary of it. Maybe we should call a truce on this one as I can't see the two sides seeing eye to eye. We must have something better to discuss. Hopefully james007 won't reignite it (no pun intended) by giving the come on to another of the female forumites [;)]
Reply ID 34980
quote:Oh, I don't know. I reckon there's been quite a lot of information. It is getting a bit dull though, having to explain the private status of the public house so many times and keep reminding people that my argument is not pro-smoking.
Originally posted by Tiggerquote:Yes - this must be one of the longest threads with no particular information - surley only the Hillside (sorry Justin) could have beaten it.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Even as one of the main protagonists of this thread I'm growing somewhat weary of it. Maybe we should call a truce on this one as I can't see the two sides seeing eye to eye. We must have something better to discuss. Hopefully james007 won't reignite it (no pun intended) by giving the come on to another of the female forumites [;)]
Reply ID 35028
The public/private thing is a red herring. A Pub (Public House) is of course private, but its just like a shopping centre, a cinema like any other non governmental property. Any business can have an offer to treat, but does not have to serve. The Lord Haig is no different to Waitrose in that respect. they simply need the relevant licence to trade. A pub licence is to sell drink, not to smoke. Banning smoking in certain places iis simply a reaction to our greater understanding of the damages it causes. I think the vast majority of people who do not agree with the ban are either badly educated to the health risks or a drug addict(smoker).
Reply ID 35045
quote:Re:- your last comment, neither in my case.[:(!] Banning smoking in pubs is actually a knee-jerk reaction to inaccurate data from a self-serving lobby. If one does take the known facts into account, the reasons stated for doing it are totally invalid. The aganda is not the one claimed and it is impossible to make an informed or logical case for the ban on those grounds. There may be other side-benefits, but they are not being claimed. Waitrose is a grocer. Nobody lives there or works more than 35 hours on the premises. If you went to a grocers in 1940, you still would not find anyone smoking there. However, if you went to a pub in 1600, you would. A pub is specifically for communial use of legal drugs. That is the primary reason for attending although there might be darts or a jukebox. The strongest of these drugs is alcohol and it is also the most likely to cause harm to third parties, who are outside the walls of the premises, and who have not visited the establishment. This drug is also a factor in the vast majority of public order offences and violent crime. It is the other drug which is being banned, despite that one having no possible effect on anyone not deliberately choosing attend a place where it was known to be, and no proven harmful effect even if they do make that choice.
Originally posted by Dude
The public/private thing is a red herring. A Pub (Public House) is of course private, but its just like a shopping centre, a cinema like any other non governmental property. Any business can have an offer to treat, but does not have to serve. The Lord Haig is no different to Waitrose in that respect. they simply need the relevant licence to trade. A pub licence is to sell drink, not to smoke. Banning smoking in certain places iis simply a reaction to our greater understanding of the damages it causes. I think the vast majority of people who do not agree with the ban are either badly educated to the health risks or a drug addict(smoker).
Reply ID 35111
This is very boring now.
Reply ID 35115
Agree 100% Victor, the time for representations to the Goverment/MP's etc has long long passed, and moaning isn't going to stop the ban. We may as well get used to the idea.
Reply ID 35117
I never understand why people spend time posting on threads they think have run there course? If you are no longer interested, you no longer need to contribute, thats the beauty of it. If it is no longer of interest to you, why exactly are you here to comment on it?
Reply ID 35167
quote:I agree Dude. Though the ban is inevitable now, the debate on this forum has been lively and entertaining, if a little repetitive at times, even after the fact. There is a relevance for the future, perhaps. I believe the social gains are outweighed by the social losses by the setting of a precedent of lawmaking without strong factual basis. It is to this part that I object.
Originally posted by Dude
I never understand why people spend time posting on threads they think have run there course? If you are no longer interested, you no longer need to contribute, thats the beauty of it. If it is no longer of interest to you, why exactly are you here to comment on it?
Reply ID 35796
This report should interest you all. http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=27379
Reply ID 42280
Well,it's here guys and gals. Any comments so far? We experienced several new faces today because of the smoke free environment.
Reply ID 42281
White Horse quite busy (arguably more so than normal) some new faces, but suspect coincidence.
Reply ID 42282
Mrs Sloop and I walked along Fore Street until halted by a gathering of locals outside the Ram Inn - all puffing away quite happily and at least one quaffing a pint. Apart from them Fore Street was quite empty.
Reply ID 42284
The personal hygiene of certain people was more prevalent due to the loss of tobacco smoke at a pub in Hertford that we were within this lunchtime. I agree with Sloop, the people congregating on the streets outside certain pubs was odd for a Sunday, all puffing away. I'm sure it will pass, given time and personal choice.
Reply ID 42288
I am a former smoker, though not one who is particularly anti-smoking, and I have to say that I noticed very few changes, which is probably a good thing given the potential drop in trade for some establishments. However, the one major change I have noticed is the number of NO SMOKING signs that have appeared, and I also understand it is an offence not to display these. Surely, given the publicity over the past few months, everyone who frequents a pub, club etc. knows about the change in the law from 1st July so to have to plaster these signs over every available surface in said drinking establishments is just one demand too many on the proprietors. I know this applies to places of work and a great many other institutions as well, but it seems to me (and some may call me cynical) that the whole smoking ban thing is being made into a potential revenue making exercise by catching out the unprepared few, even though they may have committed no real crime, even in the eyes of the most ardent anti-smoker.
Reply ID 42292
I really think it's a revenue earner for the sign makers, all public places, even Churches!! Have you ever seen anyone spark up a ciggy/pipe/cigar in a Church?
Reply ID 42293
quote:I don't think many smokers ever lit up where it was banned anyway, except for the odd mistake, or the type of person who'd offend in any circumstance, so I wouldn't expect revenue to outweigh cost. Smokers smoked in pubs because it was a place traditionally designated for that purpose, together with alcohol consumption. It could be said that those who like one drug but not the other have imposed their will over those who perhaps go to a pub to smoke, but are less driven by drink. It's interesting that having achieved the ban on smoking, the "thou shalt not" brigade have immediately turned on drinkers, as I predicted they would.
Originally posted by Aelle
I am a former smoker, though not one who is particularly anti-smoking, and I have to say that I noticed very few changes, which is probably a good thing given the potential drop in trade for some establishments. However, the one major change I have noticed is the number of NO SMOKING signs that have appeared, and I also understand it is an offence not to display these. Surely, given the publicity over the past few months, everyone who frequents a pub, club etc. knows about the change in the law from 1st July so to have to plaster these signs over every available surface in said drinking establishments is just one demand too many on the proprietors. I know this applies to places of work and a great many other institutions as well, but it seems to me (and some may call me cynical) that the whole smoking ban thing is being made into a potential revenue making exercise by catching out the unprepared few, even though they may have committed no real crime, even in the eyes of the most ardent anti-smoker.
Reply ID 42294
quote:Excuse me, did I miss something? How do you work that out?
Originally posted by shunt
It's interesting that having achieved the ban on smoking, the "thou shalt not" brigade have immediately turned on drinkers, as I predicted they would.
Reply ID 42295
quote:Have you not noticed the sudden increase in anti-drinking media coverage of late? New government guidelines have been released only last month. Locally, the police have applied for an order specifically targetting drink, rather than using existing and adequate general law. This is happening across the country.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Excuse me, did I miss something? How do you work that out?
Originally posted by shunt
It's interesting that having achieved the ban on smoking, the "thou shalt not" brigade have immediately turned on drinkers, as I predicted they would.
Reply ID 42297
Perhaps they are preaching the 12th step of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Reply ID 42298
quote:You'll have to enlighten me on that one. I've concentrated my research on trying to find proveable damage to third parties, not direct damage to smokers or drinkers. What is step 12? Oh forget it. The penny has just dropped.[:I]
Originally posted by Dell Boy
Perhaps they are preaching the 12th step of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Reply ID 42301
The 12th step. http://www.recovery.org/aa/misc/12steps.html Going off topic now sorry Admin. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread Shunt.
Reply ID 42302
quote:I think it may be relevent to the subject. The evangelical approach in well meaning self-help societies and the "ban anything I don't personally enjoy" groups being universal, though with different objectives. The anti-smoking lobby certainly hi-jacked the obvious and proven ill effects on the smoker to suggest the same effects on non-smokers, regardless of the evidence. There is clear and proveable evidence of drink harming non-drinkers outside the physical area in which the drink is consumed. Since no clear evidence brought us from 80% of british men smoking in the 60's to the present scenario, what are the possibilities for pressure groups to act on drink? Whether I believe a reduction in either to be a good thing or not is not the point (I'm pleased that fewer smoke and support the anti-smoking laws in all true public places, because that protects the rights of non-smokers). When one group invades private property by using an act of law, that is an errosion of civil liberty.
Originally posted by Dell Boy
The 12th step. http://www.recovery.org/aa/misc/12steps.html Going off topic now sorry Admin. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread Shunt.
Reply ID 42304
Wonderful to come home from the Barge quiz yesterday and not reek of smoke. Didn't see any problems and the quiz was as busy as ever so not much affect on trade by the look of it
Reply ID 42306
quote:Did the quiz master make any allowances for smoke breaks between rounds?
Originally posted by Andrew
Wonderful to come home from the Barge quiz yesterday and not reek of smoke. Didn't see any problems and the quiz was as busy as ever so not much affect on trade by the look of it
Reply ID 42308
Are the public now going to avoid bonfire night I ask thee?
Reply ID 42317
quote:It'll probably be banned by November 5th anyway [:(!]
Originally posted by James007
Are the public now going to avoid bonfire night I ask thee?
Reply ID 42321
we walked through town last night at about 8pm and all the pubs we passed along the way (OXT, Woolpack, White Hart & Baroosh) were dead. There weere less than 10 people in each pub. We went in to Pizza Experss for a quick bite and it was rammed. It was nice to go to the boozer afterwards and not worry about stinking of fag smoke when you left. Shame there's been no increase in bins, ashtrays etc on the streets as you know the amount of fag butt litter is going to increase loads
Reply ID 42334
Ah well, With all the smoke finally dispersing, How refreshing it is to sit in your local and now be able to smell the stench of urine.[:D][:D][:)] I just wonder where the government will start looking to claw back a lot of the tax they are going to lose. [?]
Reply ID 42342
quote:Just the usual break to get to the bar.
Originally posted by Deverauxquote:Did the quiz master make any allowances for smoke breaks between rounds?
Originally posted by Andrew
Wonderful to come home from the Barge quiz yesterday and not reek of smoke. Didn't see any problems and the quiz was as busy as ever so not much affect on trade by the look of it
Reply ID 42344
We were able to enjoy the Black Horse Quiz last night without reeking of other people's smoke. The pub was as packed as evrr and everyne seemed to be enjoying themselves.
Reply ID 42345
Have not been in my local yet as they are taking the oppertunity to re-paint the place to remove all signs of smoking, so will be interesting to see the difference once they do open again. Pretty sure it will mean that come rain or shine those who want to smoke will be found standing outside the front/back of the pub smoking as usual.
Reply ID 42349
The speciality status of the non-smoking pubs has also been lost. They will have to try a lot harder now they have so much competition for the non-smoking market, which previously only supported two pubs locally. It will be interesting to see the effect once the novelty wears off. Sadly, as Scotland has found, there may yet be losses and closures. It really depends on how strongly alcohol is marketed and the limits placed to rein in the effects of it's expansion. It may be some years before we are able to walk pavements which are free of vomit, or stop shop windows being broken, cars being vandalised, young men being injured in assaults, road deaths caused by people still legally under the limit, unwanted pregnancy, rape, vehicle crime, domestic violence, deaths whilst judgement impaired and all the other things associated with alcohol. Still, maybe pubs can survive by selling a nice cup of tea (clearly marked "Caution. Contents may be hot") when that time comes and we'll all be very, very safe.
Reply ID 42351
shunt, I hear what your saying but it sounds like "wha, wha, wha, whine, whine, whine". I think we've all got the gist of your point of view. You don't have to repeat it in every other post.
Reply ID 42353
quote:Point taken John. I'm actually thinking about other pending changes which are in the same vein and which are really bothering me. It perhaps is pushing me too far towards the general principle, rather than the single subject.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
shunt, I hear what your saying but it sounds like "wha, wha, wha, whine, whine, whine". I think we've all got the gist of your point of view. You don't have to repeat it in every other post.
Reply ID 42356
I know what you're saying and hope you didn't take offence at my post (anyone who has watched Karen Taylor on BBC3 would understand). Pretty soon we will become a sterile and non-adventurous country. Imagine where we would be if the likes of Sir Walter Raleigh couldn't set sail for the new world because the health & safety executive had said he hadn't conformed to all relevant legislation [;)] My employer has taken draconian measures and banned smokers from smoking on the pavements around its buildings and, in some cases, halfway across the road!
Reply ID 42357
quote:[:D]
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I know what you're saying and hope you didn't take offence at my post (anyone who has watched Karen Taylor on BBC3 would understand).
Reply ID 42362
One of the favourite requests on Two Way Family Favourites was the sketch by an American (whose name I have forgotten - age) about Walter Raleigh which went something like: 'Tobacco - whats that Walter, you roll it up in a piece of paper and then you put it in your mouth. Then what do you do Walt? - you set fire to it!!!!'
Reply ID 42363
quote:Bob Newhart. There is a theory that Walt intended to bring back cannabis but, being a better pirate than botanist and chemist, was ripped off and directed to the the cheaper tobacco, rather than the good stuff.[:D]
Originally posted by sloopjohnb
One of the favourite requests on Two Way Family Favourites was the sketch by an American (whose name I have forgotten - age) about Walter Raleigh which went something like: 'Tobacco - whats that Walter, you roll it up in a piece of paper and then you put it in your mouth. Then what do you do Walt? - you set fire to it!!!!'
Reply ID 42366
quote:which no doubt the Americans kept to themselves - rather like the French sending us Beaujolais Nouveau.
was ripped off and directed to the the cheaper tobacco, rather than the good stuff
Reply ID 42371
quote:The Peace-pipe worked so well, that it was unlikely to have contained mere tobacco. "Wow! Peaceful, man" and "Dude, do stars move about?" are phrases omitted from the portrayal of the American native in films.[:D]
Originally posted by sloopjohnbquote:which no doubt the Americans kept to themselves - rather like the French sending us Beaujolais Nouveau.
was ripped off and directed to the the cheaper tobacco, rather than the good stuff
Reply ID 42372
Also noticed a woman having a smoke on the platform at Hertford North this morning. She was stood right next to a "No Smoking" sign.
Reply ID 42377
quote:http://monologues.co.uk/Bob_Newhart/Tobacco.htm has the transcript...but try & hear it in the origional Newhart - its class...
Originally posted by shuntquote:Bob Newhart. There is a theory that Walt intended to bring back cannabis but, being a better pirate than botanist and chemist, was ripped off and directed to the the cheaper tobacco, rather than the good stuff.[:D]
Originally posted by sloopjohnb
One of the favourite requests on Two Way Family Favourites was the sketch by an American (whose name I have forgotten - age) about Walter Raleigh which went something like: 'Tobacco - whats that Walter, you roll it up in a piece of paper and then you put it in your mouth. Then what do you do Walt? - you set fire to it!!!!'
Reply ID 42379
quote:Probably confused and just didn't spot the sign. The station platform is not an enclosed place on which many smokers used to have the last cigarette before embarking on a smoke free journey. Are you sure the sign referred to outside, rather than being at the entrance to a waiting room or office?
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Also noticed a woman having a smoke on the platform at Hertford North this morning. She was stood right next to a "No Smoking" sign.
Reply ID 42380
I'm pretty sure that FCC have deemed all areas in all their stations as smoke free. I guess it cuts out any confusion. Just found the link: http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/Main.php?iCmsPageId=227
Reply ID 42382
quote:It's the same with ONE - I had to kick my way through the fag ends strewn along the platform to check but that's what the signs say at Rye House
Originally posted by JohnSmith
I'm pretty sure that FCC have deemed all areas in all their stations as smoke free. I guess it cuts out any confusion. Just found the link: http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/Main.php?iCmsPageId=227
Reply ID 42383
quote:Oh yes, and while you're at it, check out some of his other monologues which also still work well. This man's delivery of one side of a conversation to convey the other was legendary. The humour does rely on historical inaccuracy though. Evidence suggests that every section of mankind, wherever they evolved in the world, has smoked since first learning to set light to stuff. We already smoked, particularly in public houses, just as we always drank alcohol and it would not have surprised anyone in Elizabethan Britain. Excuse me while I just light up my pipe of hemp, flax and linseed.[xx(]
http://monologues.co.uk/Bob_Newhart/Tobacco.htm has the transcript...but try & hear it in the origional Newhart - its class...
Reply ID 42425
Very interesting article in The Grauniad... [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2119888,00.html"]Next the anti-smoking Guardianistas will be coming for dogs and cats[/url]
Reply ID 42427
I was once accosted in the only smoking bar I could find in Atlanta, Georgia by someone who complained that 'Oh Man, you're killing me with your smoke.' I pointed out that I could think of a lot of quicker ways and he ran away. I look forward to a spate of comedy nicotine rage violence in which healthy types find passive smoking is the least of the dangers they face. Passive smokers are parasites who inhale other people's hard-earned smoke without paying for it. I badly need to give up smoking. But I can't because if I do I'll be one of them. I'd rather die. Oh - that's sorted then.
Reply ID 42428
Unpleasant but not as dangerous, passive drinking is where you imbibe a pint of mixed Pernod, Advocaat and Lager, lean over the drinkee and put your finger down your throat. You fill my lungs with smoke, I'll fill your hair with vomit. Not you Kev of course!
Reply ID 42429
quote:Interesting indeed. I must confess to have made a mental note of the list of pubs which both allow dogs and serve food, which appears on another thread, and vowed not to eat at any of them. This is, however, my personal choice, just as avoiding places which allowed smoking was a personal choice for non-smokers.
Originally posted by Steve
Very interesting article in The Grauniad... [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2119888,00.html"]Next the anti-smoking Guardianistas will be coming for dogs and cats[/url]
Reply ID 42655
If they ban dogs from some of Hertfords pubs, a couple of town centre establishments will look like a turkish bath.....[;)]
Reply ID 42657
quote:Oh, I think the pastel, untucked, logo shirties would follow.[:D]
Originally posted by Dude
If they ban dogs from some of Hertfords pubs, a couple of town centre establishments will look like a turkish bath.....[;)]
Reply ID 42661
Those who do not meet the european height average may also be excluded, where will it all end [;)]
Reply ID 42662
Out of interest, how is everyone finding the ban? I had a strange experience on Sunday. Went down the pub to watch the Grand Prix and, as the company was so good, stayed a lot longer than I had planned. I had an absolute skinful. When this happens I am guaranteed to have the world's worst hangover the following day. Also, in the past, when I've been in this state I notice that my breathing is very laboured. Monday morning I woke up feeling fresh as a daisy [:)] Obviously one swallow does not a summer make but if this is the result of the smoking ban then I'll be well chuffed.
Reply ID 42663
quote:I was in the Duncombe on Friday night and it was much better, for two reasons. One, it was obviously smoke free. Secondly, it was a lot less packed because the smokers were in the garden a lot of the time. Could this be a welcome knock on effect? I'm guessing fire regs will only allow the same amount of people on the premises, but now, they are spread over a larger area.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Out of interest, how is everyone finding the ban? I had a strange experience on Sunday. Went down the pub to watch the Grand Prix and, as the company was so good, stayed a lot longer than I had planned. I had an absolute skinful. When this happens I am guaranteed to have the world's worst hangover the following day. Also, in the past, when I've been in this state I notice that my breathing is very laboured. Monday morning I woke up feeling fresh as a daisy [:)] Obviously one swallow does not a summer make but if this is the result of the smoking ban then I'll be well chuffed.
Reply ID 42665
Hopefully the result will be more smokers becoming non-smokers, rather than abandoning pubs. My own group of friends, being a mix of both smokers and non-smokers and regular pub users, tend to meet at each others houses more as a result of the pressure exerted even before the ban. I have to say, we don't miss pubs much, or at least, we don't miss what pubs have become. It's not fair to blame the smoking ban totally. Pubs were places where taboos were relaxed and each had it's own character as a result. Now there is a tendancy to respond to every wish and whim. The results, I find sterile, formal and souless.
Reply ID 42670
quote:No, pubs are and always were for this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img] And not this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img] or any other "taboo". I find the new environment cleaner, fresher, and less damaging to my health.
Originally posted by shunt
Pubs were places where taboos were relaxed and each had it's own character as a result. Now there is a tendancy to respond to every wish and whim. The results, I find sterile, formal and souless.
Reply ID 42671
apart from the smell of the toilets now.
Reply ID 42672
quote:Really? Not at any point in British history, until now.
Originally posted by Dudequote:No, pubs are and always were for this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img] And not this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img]
Originally posted by shunt
Pubs were places where taboos were relaxed and each had it's own character as a result. Now there is a tendancy to respond to every wish and whim. The results, I find sterile, formal and souless.
Reply ID 42673
quote:At every point in britsh history. Pubs were designed for the purpose of serving alcohol. I never said it has to exist in exclusivity. We've all heard slang such as "Watering hole". Ever heard of a "puffing hole"? Me neither. Fags, food, pets, all feature somewhere along the line, it doesn't mean times/trends/knowledge can't challenge or change those familiar sights. You've always been able to smoke in a car, but it is designed for driving, not as a smoking room. Sure smoking can be allowed it in, but equally it can be banned. How many people do we here these days saying... "Houses, they aren't very good anymore. They are sterile and safe. They were much better when we used asbestos. Damn do gooders taking my liberties away stopping me putting asbestos everywhere.It should be up to me. Why don't they introduce special asbestos houses, so we can choose". [;)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:Really? Not at any point in British history, until now.
Originally posted by Dudequote:No, pubs are and always were for this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img] And not this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img]
Originally posted by shunt
Pubs were places where taboos were relaxed and each had it's own character as a result. Now there is a tendancy to respond to every wish and whim. The results, I find sterile, formal and souless.
Reply ID 42674
quote:I take your point in part. Mine is not a pro-smoking platform, but one that is against the imposition of belief-based legislation. There is clear evidence for the health risks associated with asbestos and the risk remains in the building when the occupancy changes. Niether is true of secondary smoking. I would not claim smoking as a universal or required activity in pubs, just that it was always a choice for an individual pub to allow it, or not and similarly, a choice for a non-smoker whether he attended that pub or not.
Originally posted by Dudequote:At every point in britsh history. Pubs were designed for the purpose of serving alcohol. I never said it has to exist in exclusivity. We've all heard slang such as "Watering hole". Ever heard of a "puffing hole"? Me neither. Fags, food, pets, all feature somewhere along the line, it doesn't mean times/trends/knowledge can't challenge or change those familiar sights. You've always been able to smoke in a car, but it is designed for driving, not as a smoking room. Sure smoking can be allowed it in, but equally it can be banned. How many people do we here these days saying... "Houses, they aren't very good anymore. They are sterile and safe. They were much better when we used asbestos. Damn do gooders taking my liberties away stopping me putting asbestos everywhere.It should be up to me. Why don't they introduce special asbestos houses, so we can choose". [;)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:Really? Not at any point in British history, until now.
Originally posted by Dudequote:No, pubs are and always were for this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img] And not this: [img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img]
Originally posted by shunt
Pubs were places where taboos were relaxed and each had it's own character as a result. Now there is a tendancy to respond to every wish and whim. The results, I find sterile, formal and souless.
Reply ID 42681
Shunt claims there is no evidence for health risks associated with secondary smoking. The following suggests otherwise http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
Reply ID 42682
quote:There is also a great deal of evidence not on the Ash lobby website to suggest the opposite. That also is unlikely to be the whole story. Finding everything in one place is almost impossible. The BMA still lists no deaths directly as a result of passive smoking however, though some individual studies suggest there may be links. Probable, I have always conceeded. At times I may have ommitted the word "conclusive" in my text. The effects of passive smoking are, however, irrelevent if one is not exposed to it. As I have said before, outside a leisure environment and on public property, I am all for a smoking ban. My personal view is that it is unreasonable to subject non-smokers to smoke against their will. After all, we don't allow drinking at work, why should we allow smoking? Both are leisure drugs which effect others. One definately impacts on those who don't partake, whether or not they go where it is used, the other may impact on others, but only if they choose to go where it is used. My point throughout was that a non-smoker who deliberately goes onto private property, where smoking is permitted, is responsible for their own risk assessment. The non-drinker does not have that option.
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt claims there is no evidence for health risks associated with secondary smoking. The following suggests otherwise http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
Reply ID 42683
"we don't allow drinking at work" I think you will find that there is no law banning drinking at work. Most workplaces don't allow you to drink at work during work hours on health & safety grounds. However, there are companies where you can drink on work premises during work hours.
Reply ID 42684
quote:Exactly. No law, just accepted practice. Most workplaces were also already non-smoking long before the ban was suggested. I actually don't give tinker's cuss about the smoking ban's effect on me, because it is virtually nil. It's the precedent that concerns me, particularly since many of life's pleasures can be easily targetted as unsafe.
Originally posted by JohnSmith
"we don't allow drinking at work" I think you will find that there is no law banning drinking at work. Most workplaces don't allow you to drink at work during work hours on health & safety grounds. However, there are companies where you can drink on work premises during work hours.
Reply ID 42691
quote:Do you drive Buzz?
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt claims there is no evidence for health risks associated with secondary smoking. The following suggests otherwise http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
Reply ID 42692
quote:Yes
Originally posted by James007quote:Do you drive Buzz?
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt claims there is no evidence for health risks associated with secondary smoking. The following suggests otherwise http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
Reply ID 42696
quote:I'd guess you're intending "more third-party injury caused by drivers of cars" argument here, James. Car drivers have a significant majority, so no ban is likely. Likewise, moderate drinkers classify themselves falsely in the same third-party risk catagory as non-drinkers, despite statistics and so are also in the majority. No, the next likely ban is something other than both these two and of almost no danger or nuisance to the public at all. The current trend for banning things does not depend on how dangerous it is, or the cause of the danger, but how strong the lobby group is and how willing the population are to be sheep. People complain about what they think others are complaining about, regardless of evidence. From Global Warming to traffic wardens, the only evidence needed to campaign is that there are others doing so. Once the world was definately flat because the majority had been persuaded to believe so. It was, at the time, a "fact".
Originally posted by buzzquote:Yes
Originally posted by James007quote:Do you drive Buzz?
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt claims there is no evidence for health risks associated with secondary smoking. The following suggests otherwise http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
Reply ID 42697
Whilst this thread once had a [tenuous] relevance to Hertford, it has now become a general discussion which is outside the scope of this forum. Given that it is 22 pages long I think most of the points that could be made for one argument or another have already been made.
Reply ID 42718
quote:Thank gods for that!!
Originally posted by Admin
Whilst this thread once had a [tenuous] relevance to Hertford, it has now become a general discussion which is outside the scope of this forum. Given that it is 22 pages long I think most of the points that could be made for one argument or another have already been made.
Reply ID 42763
quote:I am sure he can, I just found this: http://www.stubbi.co.uk/uk/index.php?page=display_prods&cat=1&loc=uk No ciggie butts outside the pub or in the river [:D]
Originally posted by Deverauxquote:Did the quiz master make any allowances for smoke breaks between rounds?
Originally posted by Andrew
Wonderful to come home from the Barge quiz yesterday and not reek of smoke. Didn't see any problems and the quiz was as busy as ever so not much affect on trade by the look of it
![http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img]](http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/party0005.gif[/img]){kind=link}