You ARE joking aren't you Telboy ?
Yve

 

it makes you wonder just how many people already do not go to pubs due to the stink. Personally I reckon there are more people not going than are going and I also reckon that more people will go to the pub when the ban comes into force. Also do you honestly think that smokers will stop going to the pub just because they can't smoke there??? of course they will still go as it is the sociable thing to do. Also more families will go to the pub so instead of dad going and having one beer, mum and the kids will also go and the pub will sell 2 or 3 more drinks than it did normally so can you explain to me how business will be badly effected by banning smoking in pubs???

 

And another thing................. Why do we need to tell the bartender/ landlord/lady when most pubs these days already have a bloomin' big sign at the bar requesting the customers not to smoke at or around the bar area ????????????
Yve

 

Does anyone know if it effected sales of booze in bars / pubs / restaurants in California when it became law ?
Richard

 

How do rights work?? Ok:


1. It is my right to smoke. - correct

2. It is my right to NOT breathe in smoke from a smoker - correct.


Now, immediately a conflict of rights. Now, rights are only rights as long as they do not affect the rights of others. As such, smokers have the right to smoke - but only if that doesn't affect a non smokers right of not inhaling this smoke.

Having designated smoking/non smoking areas in public places makes sense. A TOTAL ban of all indoor public places (E.G. Pub) makes complete sense also.

It is a simple compromise. Smokers wish to smoke, then do so - however not in or around the vicinity of non smokers.

Before any smokers start spouting "if they (non smokers) don't like it they should move away from me" - I'm afraid that non-smokers 'were here first' and it is not us that is causing the problem.

So, a ban is the ideal scenario. It's not stopping smokers from smoking - it's simply enforcing a rule of un-selfishness ; something that smokers it seems are incapable of comprehending.


As a footnote, smoking isa vile, smelly, disgusting and utterly pointless "habit" and nothing would please me more than cleaning up, putting on some nice clothes and going out of an evening without stinking like ****e after 5 mins due to that muck in the atmosphere. Not much repulses me more than breathing in smoke that has circulated down the throat, around the lungs, back up the throat and out the scabby, stinking filth-pot of a mouth and back into the atmosphere.

Thank you.

 

So you don't like smokers Big Man ?
Yve

 

No problem with them on a personal level.

 

LOL

I can go to the pub socially and not drink achohol. But at the moment I can't do the same and not breath in second-hand smoke.

 

Drinking does not directly affect others, smoking however does. The drinking equivalent of smoking would be to drink some beer, swish it around your mouth then systematically spit it into people faces.

However this, is STILL not as bad for ones health as breating in smoke.

I hope that quantifies the issue.

 

I smoke and have no problem with a ban being enforced, at work we have to go outside which is fair on the non-smokers and also means that the smokers either get less work done or smoke less at work.

Personally i smoke less at work, only during my lunch break as it gets the non-smokers backs up if you dissapear evry hour for a smoke.

I can whole heartdly understand non-smokers point of view regarding smell, negative effect on health when frequenting a pub. Ireland have enforced the ban and to my knowledge it has had no adverse effects on the bar trade. If you want a *** go outside.

Oh and if anybody has any tried and tested ways of giving up please let me know as I hate the habit and have tried a few times recently to give up but have failed miserably.

GB

 

Please can you give me your definition of "compromise" as it doesn't seem to correspond to what I find in the dictionary.

 

And you have been offered the choices and you have picked one. That's what living in a "free and democratic" country is about. Enforcing your will over others is a dictatorship and that seems to be the way this country is heading unfortunately.

 

If everybody else shared your sentiments there wouldn't be an issue.

However we don't live in an ideal world and as such these sentiments have to be forced by way of a ban.

 

SWAG.

 

Actually no, Yve. What i was suggesting is that voting with your feet, as you put it, could send an ambiguous message to the landlord. Telling him/her directly that you won't be back because of the smoky atmosphere leaves them in no doubt, and then their subsequent actions in terms of a ban or segregated smoking area (or lack of) will allow you to judge their own personal viewpoint on the matter. You'd be surprised how reticent the British can be - we should make our feelings known in situations like this more often, in my opinion!!

 

Possiby been stupid here but what is "swag" short for in this instance ?

Richard

 

I drink regularly in 3 bars, One has a permanent no smoking area, (which incidentally is normally empty), one has no smoking sections during certain times and one has a no smoking dining area. Right now, the public - ALL of the public - have a choice. A blanket ban on smoking removes any choice to the x% who smoke across the land... Right now the compromise is perfect - smokers and non smokers in many pubs get to share the same pubs and the non smoker doesnt need to breathe "second hand smoke" as they can sit in nice smoke free air conditioned areas of pubs...

Staff who choose to work in bars are now more protected as many pubs (by their own choice) deter smoking at the bar. They are also aware when they apply for these jobs as the environment they are choosing to work in. If smoke was a major concern to them they would have chosen to work elsewhere.

The right to smoke in a public place is no weaker than the right not to. The right to sit next to a smoker is no weaker than the right to sit elsewhere. The right to choose whether you sit in a non smoking area of a pub exists now. There is no need to change the law. The status quo should prevail.

I wonder of those 'campaigning' how many live a social lifestyle where they frequent these drinkeries and eateries and genuinely really 'suffer' from smoke, compared to how many are just campaigning because of the morality of it or because they have little better to do. Like Olly says, how many air their concerns to pub management etc?

And after a good night out it shouldnt only be ciggies you smell of, but also beer, curry, kebabs and vomit In fact yes, ban those too (but only if a silent majority polled by MORI or someone say so).

 

Legally, yes. Morally, absolutely not, not now that there's a proven medical link between passive smoking and all the associated wretched illnesses that can go with it.

 

The biggest problem with banning smoking is that the fat smelly ba@st@rds that usually smoke also fart a lot.

The smell of the smoke is slighly less offensive than the average beer-bellied pub customer's farts (and BO now I think of it).

Although the farts are unlikely to kill you.

 

Wrong - only when they come in to close proximity

Wrong again, you have chosen 1 right as being of higher precedence than the other. Written the other way round, do you still agree?

Non-smokers only have the right to breath clean air if it does not infringe on a smokers right to smoke.

Why does indoor need to be different from outdoors?

Right - so ban non-smokers from pubs, problem solved. You still have 1 of your rights elevated and you also seem to not undertand what the word compromise means.

I'm a non-smoker so I feel free to "spout". So if the first person in to a pub at opening time is a smoker, the non-smokers should keep out - yes?

No - it's draconian and erodes freedom of choice.

It's removing a smoker's choice to go to a pub and smoke. It's enforcing a selfish position held by non-smokers.

That's your opinion, it's your right to express it and it's your right to stay away from smokers.

 

Smoking is like a tax on stupidity.

Why on earth would you pay for something that is going to kill you.

 

Seems you see the wider issue here as well?

 

Sophisticated Wild Arsed Guesses

 

Indeed why would you eat junk food or drink alchohol either?

 

 

I wonder how many people arguing against this ban have had to watch a loved one who never smoked a cigarette, die from cancer which in all probability was brought on by passive smoking.

Most barworkers/glass collectors working on a minimum wage are students and lone parents trying to make ends meat like the rest of us, but have limited career options available due to other commitments ie studies and child-care and the flexible hours available in bar work suits their circumstances.

I may (and do) choose to smoke, but I don't see why this means others should not have a choice in breathing in my second hand smoke. I personally have no problem with smoking bans, in fact it may help me cut back or even stop, most smokers I know want to, and those that say they don't are either lying or stupid.

 

I'd be in favour of an outright ban, but i think non-smokers can do more to get their point across. If smoking didn't smell, or potentially kill me, i wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But if we're talking "public" places, that by definition is somewhere that *anyone* should be able to go without their health (and to a lesser degree their "comfort") being compromised.

 

but doing either will not affect the person sitting next to me !!

 

Don't eat junk food and drink moderately.

What is the point of smoking? Junk food and drinking do at least have a purpose.

 

I certainly don't think it is selfish not to want to risk your health by having to breathe secondhand smoke. If smokers refuse to act responsibly then they cannot complain if they get banned.

Les