I've read statistics which say that 30% of our population are smokers and 70% are non-smokers.
If you go into any busy pub on a weekend night you'll probably find that most of the customers are smokers. This suggests to me that the majority of the population are staying away from our pubs. Why is that?
I live in two towns, 250 miles apart. I've been in every pub in both towns and not one of them provide a no smoking area. I would love to go for a night out but I can't. I went out on Christmas eve with a few friends but I had to leave after half an hour because I just couldn't breathe.
The ban comes into effect in Scotland on March 26th. The licensed trade are worried that it will affect their livelyhood. I however have a completely different opinion that all the non smoking public will start to go out more.

 

Not very many as there are only 700 per year.

I found a job delivering Pizzas and working as a security guard at night in an office. Choices, choices, choices!

What you tie people in the seats around you or you go and blow the smoke in their face?

So you lack the will power to quit? There are ways to get help and if you want to stop then I condone that. However, removing people's choices is not something we should be encouraging.

 

But if you're sitting in a no smoking pub, the person next to you isn't affecting your health either!

 

Please, I'll ask again - who is forcing you to breath second hand smoke? You choose to go in to that environment.

Errr - how many people do you see smoking in areas designated as non-smoking? Smokers do respect those areas. I don't suppose many smokers would object to there being more non-smoking or more designated smoking areas, but why does it have to be all or nothing?

 

You're clearly being too difficult and stubborn to appreciate what people are trying to tell you.

As has been said:

A case of you not being able to see the wood for the trees, I feel.

 

I understand the non-smokers, and I honestly dont care if they ban it or not, i'll just stay at home more rather than going to the pub

Though it should be banned as a Class A like heroin, and banned completely - then we'll see what happens when the NHS lose their £8billion a year revenue

You'r not gauranteed to die from smoking, so you could say the same about driving fast cars

Tell that to any of my friends that have been battered by pissheads, or had cars vandalised etc - Pissheads cause more trouble than anything, i'd rather smell of smoke on a night out than be bottled/punched/battered

You say "probably". I've never met anyone thats been ill due to "passive smoking", or seen anyone on the news die from it, except maybe Roy Castle, who used to suck in vast amounts of smoke through a trumpet

I understand the overall feelings of smokers and none smokers, but we should ALL be worried about the growing ban culture, polluting performance cars will be next

 

As for "none smoking rooms", our local has one and its nice, and doesnt have any smoke drifting into it. I'm the only smoker in our group, so I go in there with them, then just nip outside when I want a smoke.

I dont smoke in the house, so i'm used to going outside

In fact, just off for a ciggie now

 

Please define compromise. The dictionary says it means:
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

What concessions are the anti smokers making? At the moment it is entirely one way. Please conceed something in return then you may call it a compromise, at the moment it is draconian enforcement and the errosion of freedom of choice.

 

Thank you! Somebody else that realises that the picture is bigger than smoking. I don't smoke, I would be happy if nobody smoked, but I am sure as hell going to defend a smokers right to smoke and people's right to make choices. Anything that restricts freedom of choice is IMO bad.

The smoking issue would be better if we "Increased" choice, by encouraging more pubs to offer smoke free facilities and then let market forces do the rest.

 

I Still have no idea what SWAG means!!!!!

 

What about the bar staff's right to not having to die from passive smoking related disease?

Saying you can drink somewhere else is fine, but form many that kind of work is their liveliehood.

 

Everbody I know that has been to Dublin (smokers & non-smokers) agree that it is great !

Banning smoking should have been the first ban - not hunting furry cute vermin !

But two-jags prefers to attack toffs than scummy labour voting smokers !

 

Wo-ho, hang on. You'll made the link from banning smoking in public (covered) places to banning smoking full stop. Where'd you get this from?

I don't allow smoking in my flat, it's banned there. Am I restricting freedom of choice? Will society start to fall apart? Is this the start of me banning everything in the world? I think not.

Cars are banned from the pavement, doesn't mean there's a plan to ban them from the roads as well.

Keep a sense of proportion.

As for compromising, non-smokers have been doing ALL the compromising in pubs by trying to keep away from smoke, going elsewhere, staying at home etc. What compromise have the smokers made?

 

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showpost....9&postcount=83

 

The clue is there.

 

I did respond to this when somebody else mentioned it earlier.

But a few additional questions for you
1) How many bar staff are there in the UK?
2) How many smoke?
3) Of the 700 passive smoking cases last year, how many were bar staff?
4) Of the non-smoking bar staff, who could not perform any other kind of work whatsoever?

 

I don't really care if it's "great" or if it's "crap" it's the removal of choice and that goes against being in a free democratic society. It would be interesting to see how many people would be saying "it's wrong" if we were talking about banning cars.

 

Dracoro hit the nail on the head:

...and might I add, risking our health due to selfish smokers.

 

Provision of non-smoking rooms in pubs. Banning of smoking on buses. Banning of smoking on trains. And in both the latter cases there was always the option for a smoke free area for non smokers, which in the case of trains was the majority of the train anyway.

The choices have always been there to allow non-smokers to have the same experiences as smokers in a smoke free environment. You are removing a(nother) choice completely for smokers

 

IF there were no pubs with non-smoking rooms you might almost have a point. There are and you don't.

 

And you obviously hold your own health in pretty low regard otherwise you would be avoiding the smokers. I know inhaling carbon monoxide is bad for me so I tend not to lock myself in the garage with the engine running.

 

well said that man.... i have been a smoker and i ma a non-smoker now but so much of our laws are implemented by knee jerk or nanny state policies.



to me if that is possible does it not seem preferable to creating yet another form of prohibition???

 

So why was it everytime I got on a train the only place I could get a seat was in the smoking car because the rest of the train was full of non smokers and I could pretty much guarantee to get a seat in the smoking car regardless of whether I wanted it or not. So going on my personal logic here! there was a greater need for non smoking cars and not a need for a smoking car so they got rid of it. The only problem now is that the whole train is still full of non smokers and you still can't get a seat

 

What Im seeing here is people arguing for the "choice" it seems the ONLY choice a non smoker has in this world is to be a hermit and avoid all smokers in the world yet the smokers choice is to roam free everywhere and do whatever they like without being worried about anyone elses health because if they dont like it they can move.

Comes across as ignorant to me.

 

well said that man

 

No I didn't. My response that you quoted was in relation to:

As I don't smoke and it doesn't affect me if it is banned or not, on a personal level. On a social level it just another thing the government gets away with banning and reducing our right to make choices. It would be hypocritical of me to try and defend only the choices I want, you either support freedom of choice or you don't, you can't pick and choose the bits to suit yourself, again that's being hypocritical AND selfish.

 

glad to see that the militant "non smokers" havent read the point i raised about air filtration equipement but feel that they are the only view that counts






ps said as a non-smoker

 

You are joking right? When did you last have a smoker next to you:
On the bus
On the underground
In your car
In your house
In McDonalds
On a train
In the office
etc etc etc.

About the only time you'll be next to a smoker these days is if you stand outside an office where they are all huddled or in a pub that doesn't have a non-smoking room.

Comes across as blinkered to me

 

I get off the train every morning, without fail there's always one in front of me who lights up as soon as we get on the platform straight into your face. in other words, try walking behind a smoker.

 

Last time I had a smoker stood next to me was about 30minutes ago at work, college had gone for a ***, come back upstairs and stood talking to me, I could smell him, wasnt nice but knew thats not my problem, hes the one that smells and he'll be going back to his desk soon.

Last night, trying to enjoy a game of snooker, my snooker partner and the people on the table next to me smoking....

Look, it doesnt effect you because you have a local that has a no smoking room. Come find one in Grantham. You wont. Ive been in the majority of pubs in my town, only ones I havent been in are those on dodgy estates or street corners that are local to residents and i'm willing to bet a fair bit on them being all smoking places too...

There is nowhere I know off I can go and have a social drink without enduring smoke. I can chose to avoid them, correct, but that means I can never go have a social drink with friends etc....

As I say just because you can walk around it doesnt mean everyone else can.