Smoking in public to be banned!

Tobacco -- The Red Man's Revenge.
If there was ever a WMD, that's got to be it.
Addictive, especially in cigarette form, and until very recently it had the full support of the US Government.
Still does to a large degree.
What irks me is companies like Phillip Morris with ads telling kids not to smoke and this kind of nonsense: Mission and Values
Does anyone believe this stuff?
I'm a former smoker and I can't believe that my insurance rates include smokers.
I say if people want to smoke, let them. Just don't force me to breathe their exhaust and don't make me pay for their health insurance.
David

quote:

---

This is all fine and good, but I await Steven Toy's opinions on this matter.

---

Why?

Anyway, you asked for it so you can have it.

My local Wetherspoons on a Tuesday evening: the non-smoking area has been extended to cover most of the pub including the main eating area as well as the bar.

All well and good except that the small smoking section towards the front door (?) and upstairs is crowded and the no-smoking rest of the pub is completely empty.

Tim Martin is considering a total ban in all his Wetherspoon and Lloyd No1 pubs. At least he will be responsible himself for his trade falling by 25% and this will ultimately give him the requisite market-led focus ahead of him making a final decision that will affect his livelihood and that of his employees.

I agree in banning smoking in all eating areas of bars/restaurants, and in all areas where children are permitted.

I see no reason to forbid any separate enclosure within licensed premises reserved for smokers. We should only deny individual liberty where this has an impact on the well-being of others. Where it does not, it is a case of PC fascism reigning supreme yet again.

We should make provision for those who make different to choices in life to the ones we make ourselves, especially when such choices may have no negative impact whatsoever on our lives.

Democracy should not be about allowing the majority to ride roughshod over a minority.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

I'm a former smoker and I can't believe that my insurance rates include smokers.

---

Here in the UK your Life Insurance premiums are suitably loaded if you are a smoker. Anyway, ex smokers aren't as clear from the risk of premature death attributable to smoking as someone who never smoked...

Why don't smokers get discounts on pension premiums?

Regards,

Steve.

Steven

Smokers make buildings and other peoples clothes stink. It is also unhealthy for non smokers and the major hotel chains know the legal risks they face from possible litigation in the future from staff who were compelled to work in smokey atmospheres.

The end result is inevitable, smoking will be banned in public places and certainly indoors.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is going to happen because it is simply the right decision.

When you see parents smoking in front of their children, you know you are dealing with uncaring and unprincipled people who put their own addiction before setting a decent example to their own children.

Ranson is a good example of just how these people think. He sees no problem in smoking in the same room as children. He even tries to turn the children into the problem.

I have nothing but contempt for such selfish people and he is sufficient evidence that legislation backed up by heavy fines is the only way to erradicate his like.

Regards

Mick

Ridiculous extreme example:

Smokers argument:
It is legal to smoke so why deny smokers' rights to chose where to smoke without restriction?

Ridiculous analogous argument:
It's legal to defecate, so why deny my right to take a poo on your bar?

Smokers reply:
You don't have to go outside to defecate whilst smokers do.

Analogous retort:
I am forced to remove myself from the bar and satisfy my urge elsewhere, much as for smokers.

Smokers reply:
But... But... crapping in the bar is disgusting, unhealthy, anti-social and wrong in every sense.

Retort:
Exactly as is smoking.

John

If a smoking ban will be effected than:
-forbid people to eat the unhealthy food from the likes of McDonalds (parents who take their children there and pay for their "happy" meal. Certainly they are responsible, Mick ?).
-forbid people to have copieus dinners with lots of booze and...cigars.
-forbid driving in an old car and certainly diesel engines.

The point I'm making is that the government, British or Dutch, is having a two faced view of these issues, and therefore their policy is one of inconsequence.They're hollier than the pope !

Rob.
saviour of civilised society.

Robbie,
I couldn't give a fat rat what smokers do to themselves. They're just not going to do it to me or my family. And I'm unwilling to turn into a hermit to avoid them.

So with that in mind:
1. Folk eating MacShites don't rub them all over my clothes or force them up my nose and down my throat.
2. Folk drinking large amounts can largely do it without forcing me to do it alongside.
3. Not sure of your point here. I agree that dangerous cars shouldn't be on the road but that's already the case. I drive a well maintained, perfectly running old car and it causes no bother at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
What is your moral case for preventing me opening a smoking place for myself and like minded people?

If you don't like smoke then don't go to smokey places, and pretty soon they will become smoke free. You'll be wanting the government to make horse-brasses and prawn cocktail starters mandatory next. You do all realise alcohol is a very dangerous drug? A pub or restaurant is a business not a public service. It is the right of the proprietor to prevent you entering his premises.

And what are children doing in a restaurant in the evening? Reckless parenting if you ask me. There should be a law against it. Why should I be exposed to irritants in restaurants?

Paul

---

Paul,
I think you're making the antismoking case far more effectively than I can so I'll just leave you to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I agree with Ian. I don't smoke.

I don't see why people with fragile constitutions should dictate the pleasures of others. If you don't like smokey atmospheres, don't go into them.

Paul

---

So what do people who have no choice: i.e. people who work in these environments do?

Some people don't have the luxury of changing jobs. Why should these people suffer because of the lack of will power and gross stupidity of others? It's like saying you shouldn't go out on a saturday night because some people will drink and drive and you might get killed.

Do you smoke Paul?

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I agree with Ian. I don't smoke.

I don't see why people with fragile constitutions should dictate the pleasures of others. If you don't like smokey atmospheres, don't go into them.

Paul

---

So I should avoid all public places just in case a smoker wants to light up. Sounds reasonable.

quote:

---

In future it will be the smokers seeking refuge in the marquee at the back of the Local Pub!

---

Here in Sweden smoking is never allowed at private parties (it's a convention), so the smokers has to go outside. Ironically, most of the non smokers also goes out, as the conversation is more spirited there

quote:

---

Of course, the rest of Europe will never follow.

---

There is heavy talk about it being banned at public spaces here in Sweden (OK, we don't consider ourselves as much of a part of Europe, but as we are members of the EU...)

Banning tobacco completely is not a good idea. Here in Sweden the taxes where increased heavily some ten years ago (so that the smokers would think "now it's TO expensive, I qutit."). The result was very heavy smuggling and the establishing of gangster gangs. Tax was lowered again, but the gangsters are still gangsters, only now in some other field of work.

JohanR

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK:
I drive a well maintained, perfectly running old car and it causes no bother at all.

---

If you drive a car you are responsible for the release into the atmosphere of more pollutants than a smoker, so get off your high horse.

If smoking in bars bothers you so much, complain to the bar owner until she takes the decision that she is losing business by allowing smoking on her property.

I have no objection to bars and restaurants implementing a completely no smoking policy, or a policy of having a non-smoking area, or a policy of being largely non-smoking with a separate smoking area, or even allowing smoking throughout, provided that's the business owners' decision. It's their business, their customers, it should be up to them.

-- Ian

Here in Dublin the nightlife has greatly improved since the smoking ban, sales of cigarettes are also down with thousands of calls to help lines for giving up smoking. In some places outdoor coverings and tables, suitable for those who wish to smoke, are being set up with heating units (like northern italy in winter) giving it a continental european feel.

Nick

Tom,

I don't want smoking in front of my family either.
The point I'm making is that the government is having a blind spot for alcohol related crimes and they have a blind spot for overweight and early decease from having an unhealthy lifestyle in general.
I certainly don't want to pay more for my health insurrance because of people leading an unhealthy, selfish, egoistic live.

Rob.

Hmm, I don't think anybody, really, "has no choice" about whether they work in a pub or not. Indeed, most people who do work in such places don't do so for very long.

What confuses me slightly about the whole situation is that as most people don't like smoking and smokers are a definite and decreasing minority why at least some pubs haven't started banning smoking voluntarily? The logical conclusion is that the majority of people who actually go into pubs don't mind the smoke (at least not enough to want to go somewhere else).

A ban still seems wrong to me without strong evidence of a real and realistic health risk, in which case I would argue that doing it indoors at all should be illegal and parents who smoke in the family home should be charged with Child Endangerment or somesuch. It strikes me as odd to worry more about the incidence of accidental secondhand smoking in voluntary social situations compared to the much higher exposure for children who really do have no choice in the matter.

Perhaps though, to nudge things in the right direction, one could have public smoking gets added to the existing licence process along with alcohol. I.e. pubs by default cannot allow smoking until they are given a licence to do so. I think that would quickly bring about a situation where there are many non-smoking pubs -- particularly those with an attached Berni Inn and aimed at families -- and a number of "specialist" smoking pubs for the more marginalised members of society (football fans, poets, etc).

Matthew

Matthew

The cigarette/car comparison is fatuous. Cars are an integral part of society's infrastructure and while nobody could argue about the pollution factor they actually do provide a great many benefits to us all. Cigarettes however provide a few minutes of gratuitous thrills for one selfish sod while the unfortunate folk in the vicinity have to put up with all the obnoxious side effects.

And smoking in pubs bothers me so much that I've pretty much stopped going. I've been a regular (normally 2 or 3 times a week at least) for most of my adult life and just got fed up with it. Even when it's a minority of folk smoking in the pub I still went home with hair and clothes stinking, chest sometimes on fire, occasionally with burn marks on shirt or jumper. And I never bothered complaining to the management because I knew I'd have been wasting my breath. Voluntary is a word that just doesn't appear in the average smoker's vocabulary.

I notice you've not commented on the other points in that post. Why is this?

quote:

---

If smoking _caused_ cancer everybody who smoked would get cancer.

Deane

---

This only shows that it is possible for smokers to die of something else first.

There's been a lot of posts about smokers' inconsiderately smoking in restaurants, etc - with particular emphasis on children.

As I said in my first post,(a fair way back now), smokers are mindful of the fact they are pariahs in today's society.

If smokers,(like me and my partner), go to a non-smoking restaurant the rule is respected 100% IMO.

It follows therefore, that if non-smokers go to a restuarant or pub where smoking is allowed, then they A/shouldn't be surprised if other diners smoke around them and B/the smokers shouldn't feel guilty because it is assumed that other diners, having chosen to sit in an environment where smoking is allowed, find the habit permissable.

As some other contributors have pointed out, smokers,(with the exception of one or two celebs), have complied with any legislation passed so I for one do not buy this argument that smokers are inconsiderate child killers.

The exception to the rule of course is the child who is born to a smoking parent where he or she has no choice.

In the context of this post, the choice is definitely there: if a diner goes to a smoking restaurant/pub, etc why should he or she ostracise the smoker sho is there legitimiately?

If anything, it could be said that the non-smoker who takes his family deliberately into a smoking environment is the one who should carry the guilt.

This one`s run before


I`m totally with Paul Ranson here

I hate breathing other folks tobacco smoke. I also hate, even more, inhaling motor vehicle exhaust fumes. I accept that in a free society that i have to make compromises.

I do not advocate a ban on either

What I find so utterly offensive is the pure hypocrisy of those that wish to ban smoking in OPEN public spaces,(I do not think there is a case for supporting smoking in enclosed public spaces) and then , by driving their cars, impose their noxious fumes on others. The argument of "need" in this case is a fatuous one

Furthermore, if the proprietor of a restaurant wishes to allow smoking, then anyone who objects is free to take their custom elswhere.

Let market forces (the purest form of democracy) prevail

The restrictive, strangling, nanny- state- grip of Socialism becomes worse and worse...

laurie S

Market forces? choice? I can take my custom elsewhere if I don't like it?

Let me explain...

Ok, I live in a town in North Hampshire (population c 50,000). I am a real ale drinker and long-time member of Camra. There is one pub in the town that serves decent beer.

At one end of the road I live is my Local Pub (the one pub). It is a genuine free house serving up to 10 real ales. It is often smokey (it does have filter machines which are totally ineffective). During summer months I can happily sit outside and drink beer. In winter I have to endure the effects of the (thankfully decreasing number of) smokers who frequent the pub.

The owner/landlord cannot provide a separate smoking room due to the physical layout of the pub and has no intention of banning smoking in the pub especially if he thinks it may hit his trade. He was genuinely concerned about the effects it would have.

At the other end of the road there is a Beefeater. It has non-smoking areas and serves 1 real ale, it is not one of my favourites and I have never had a decent pint in there on the odd occasion we go there.

So what do I do? Go to the Beefeater and put up with dodgy beer or do I go to my Local and put up with the smokey atmosphere? Where is the choice in that?

I understand that the Wetherspoon chain are considering a voluntary ban on smoking. They tried introducing oversize lined glasses to comply with the 'full pint' law but no-one else did so they went back to brim measure glasses. I hope they go ahead with it.

In an ideal world I would be able to drink good beer in a smoke-free Local. This will not happen unless legislation is introduced.

This government seems to fudge most things so I am not holding my breath.

quote:

---

In an ideal world I would be able to drink good beer in a smoke-free Local. This will not happen unless legislation is introduced.

---

In an "ideal" world I would be able to walk or cycle, or open my front window, without having carbon monoxide forced down my throat.

This is the crux of the issue. We all have our own idealised view of what would constitute a "perfect" world.

The fact is we all have to compromise....the alternative is dictatorship.......and this country is heading in that direction

laurie S

I for one am very glad that a ban on smoking in public places will be introduced.

I can understand issues around freedom for people to smoke if they choose, but I'd make the following points:

1) No-one is disputing the health risks of active or passive smoking.

2) What about the rights of bar-staff to protection from passive smoking and the potential liability issues for employers?

3) What about my rights as a non-smoker to be able to go out for a meal or drink and not come back having inhaled someone elses smoke and have my clothes stinking of it?

As ever, so, so much drivel has been written on this subject...

However, Paul, I do like the idea of a smoker-friendly pub/bar. Although I regard myself as an ex-smoker (again - over five days so far), I'd go, particularly if its smokiness kept the likes of Mick Parry and his malignant waffle away.

If you ever open one, let me know. In my experience, the conversation of smokers tends to be of higher quality than those who don't.

Kevin (BBC Radio 4)

Seagull -- Your argument appears to be that market forces only work if they give you (and, presumably, everybody else) exactly what they want. A more logical conclusion of your situation would be that there isn't enough demand for smoke-free real Ale pubs in your area to warrant someone opening one. Consequently you want legislation to make it happen.

Personally I want a smoke-free, real-ale pub, no jukebox, Football and Cricket but never Rugby, and personal pampering of patrons by attractive young people with characteristics that closely match preferences I can enter on a small keypad next to the comfortable armchir in which I am sitting.

Matthew

PS Can someone please explain why, as smoking seems so universally unpopular that everyone is convinced that if Wetherspoons go smoke free they will go out of business? Surely they will be full of happy non-smokers enjoying a pint without having to do exaggerated hand-wafting motions every five minutes?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
In my experience, the conversation of smokers tends to be of higher quality than those who don't.

Kevin (BBC Radio 4)

---

There was no smiley after this, so I assume you are actually talking bollocks



Still, you may have a point. Smokers have less time to live, so need to get it all out quickly.



Regards

Stephen