Smoking in public to be banned!

You have just made my point rather eloquently.

Kevin

quote:

---

Let market forces (the purest form of democracy) prevail

---

The market does not reflect the will of the people, it reflects the will of the people with the money. You vote with money, you don't get to vote if you don't have any. Democracy? Not by any definition that I am aware of. Research what tobacco companies are up to in third world countries and see if you still think the same way about market forces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
You have just made my point rather eloquently.

Kevin

---

Except I was joking?

Do you smoke Kevin?

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
and smokers are a definite and decreasing minority

---

Well in that case, there is no chance of a total ban. I expect the current government will now about-turn and protect their rights. *
I really can't see why pubs can't use really powerful filters and extractors, and when they have been installed and tested and passed certain standards, they can be allowed to have smokers in designated areas. With modern equipment there is really no need for a total ban - and if a small pub doesn't want to make the investment, they can opt to be a non-smoking pub.
Easy.

*Please excuse this rather worrying right-wing rant - but I've recently been shat on with regard to Romany gypsies setting up site on private land with no planning permission, which will take in excess of 10 years to get rid of them, while the rest of us have to jump through hoops and submit planning permissions and appeals over 3 years just to get a velux window installed.

quote:

---

You vote with money, you don't get to vote if you don't have any.

---

You don't get to be a bar or restaurant customer if you don't have any. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament could legislate for that? Free beer would garner some votes.

I'm astonished by the selfishness of those in favour of this, and by the lack of regard for civil liberty. Not to mention the timidity of the Scottish Parliament. Why on earth are they waiting until spring 2006?

And, Parry, you're barred.

Paul

Paul, what exactly is selfish about wanting to protect workers? That is the real reason for this legislation as far as I am concerned - all of the other factors are simply fringe benefits.

I'm astonished by the selfishness of smokers who light up with no regard for the comfort and wellbeing of people around them...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

---

You vote with money, you don't get to vote if you don't have any.

---

You don't get to be a bar or restaurant customer if you don't have any.

---

Yup, but that doesn't make market forces = democracy.

All I want is the freedom to not smoke. Too much to ask?

Seagull's quote:

"I'm astonished by the selfishness of smokers who light up with no regard for the comfort and wellbeing of people around them... "

Seagull, let's look at the logic here: if a smoker lights up, it'll be in a place where he can legitimately do so. He has a right to assume that people sat around in what is technically an area where smoking is allowed wouldn't object. You wouldn't expect him to go round and check with everyone that it's o.k to light up, or would you? After all, a person wouldn't go round a pub to ask permission if it's o.k with everyone else if he puts the jukebox on and then, which songs are o.k.

I really am getting very disenchanted with this endless stereotyping of smokers as selfish, libery - taking, inconsiderate, dirty and mindless sociopaths.

I believe smokers are on the whole mindful of their actions and accommodate the moves to outlaw their habit to the garden shed by observing the liberties of others and complying with the various non-smoking policies in place.

Just because the habit is disgusting, doesn't excuse what is rapidly turning into a free-for-all in the "what horrible names can we call smokers" stakes.

I was merely misquoting Paul Ranson...

quote:

---

I'm astonished by the selfishness of those in favour of this, and by the lack of regard for civil liberty

---

DLF said "All I want is the freedom to not smoke. Too much to ask?"

You are perfectly entitled not to smoke. What you want is the right to oblige owners of private businesses to ban smoking in case you want to go there.

Note that smokers do not insist on their right to smoke and are quite willing to accept non-smoking policies where that has been implemented wihtout legislation (e.g. public transport, restaraunts, cinemas, theatres, etc. etc.). I can't understand why this situation cannot be allowed to apply to pubs?

Matthew

PS Nobody has explained the Witherspoons effect to me yet. Why, if no smoking pubs would be so popular, is a decision to ban smoking in a pub seen as commercial suicide? Surely such pubs will be packed to the rafters?

Matthew,

This will possibly explain why as yet Tim Martin is undecided.

He's encouraged people to write in to his pub magazine and there is a for and against column showing the opinions of different customers on the subject.

Whichever way he jumps it will have been an excellent PR exercise for his business.

I'm sure he'll conduct the necessary research into the impact on his business before he jumps.

Regards,

Steve.

Mick,

One small point.

I now use the diminuitive version of my first name just like you do.

(So that's Steve and Mick, not Steven and Michael.)

Please respect this in future correspondence.

Regards,

Steve.

PS: I can understand Matthew not wanting his name shortened to Matt - I know it wouldn't suit him.

OTOH, I'd feel that B.Liar would sound less like a sleazeball if he called himself Anthony, but still...

"Note that smokers do not insist on their right to smoke and are quite willing to accept non-smoking policies where that has been implemented wihtout legislation (e.g. public transport, restaraunts, cinemas, theatres, etc. etc)."

I'll second that Matthew as a smoker myself.

On the pub smoking/commercial suicide question, I wonder whether banning smoking will be that serious or whether it's all part of some great plan to turn pubs into restaurants.After all, there's more money in food than booze and a "gastro-pub" has got to be more profitable than a traditional drinking pub hasn't it? A smoking ban would have to be in place in at least the dining part of a pub if it was to go down this route.

However, pubs that do this should be careful what they wish for.

My parents live in a sleepy little Buckinghamshire village where there's one pub, a free house,(it's actually where Midsomer Murders is filmed).Over time, the dining area has increased steadily until there's only a few bar stools near the entrance for the few walkers who pop in for a drink on their way home.

I went there last year to celebrate my parents' Golden Wedding Anniversary and the owners were beside themselves with joy at having the booking because trade was so slow.

We got talking and they'd said their rationale in turning the pub into a restaurant was money: there's more margin in food and wine instead of beer alone. However, they recognised that the people they wanted to get in were the sort of people who wanted a cut above the average pub fare and these people were more discerning. Amongst the concessions made was a no-smoking policy, a bigger, more expensive menu and wine list and a general nod towards a Bistro-style environment.
They made their changes and what they found was that they were brimming with guests on Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights/Sunday lunchtime but they were empty at weekday lunchtimes and Monday-Thursday evenings.
This trade gradually slowed down until after about 6 months it was merely a trickle.

This was because,(they said), they were in the wrong area for business lunches so they didn't get that trade and also, the dining culture in the U.K is geared towards a night out nearer the weekend.

As a result they were facing financial ruin.

I pointed out that perhaps some other factors were in play. Removing a drinking area doesn't encourage people to come in after dinner at home, or on the way home from work for a few jars, so that's one reason why the trade stopped so markedly.Many of these people would also eat there as well as drink. Without people standing and sitting around drinking, the place would be devoid of atmosphere so that would be off-putting to new diners.
Also, most folk when going out to dine would seldom go the same place week after week so getting people back for repeat custom is not easy as they like variation in establishment and menu.

In the case of Wetherspoon's, I think any move to a Gastropub would be very bad: the places are geared up for the under 35 singles/couples without children and definitely not the sort of place associated with good food.They have entirely the wrong image for that market IMO.
They're nothing more than Beefeaters without the food and families and should concentrate on what they're good at: selling expensive bottles of lager and alco-pops to chavs.

Given the multi-billion dollar legal claims that have been made against tobacco companies, and the possibilities of similar actions against junk-food manufacturers, I await with anticipation the day (and it will surely come soon) when someone starts a similar action against the oil companies for selling a product which, when used as intended, has effects which are proven to be detrimental to health

PS it would seem that Paul Ranson and Matthew R are the only contributors that really seem have a grasp of the issues here

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Fri 12 November 2004 at 10:04.]

quote:

---

where Midsomer Murders is filmed

---

Completely off-topic, but whenever I have cause to see any of this crazy little drama, I have to question the sanity of anyone remaining in Midsomer. After all, it's a small town - I'm surprised there's anyone left.

Also, getting life insurance there must be tricky. And with all that bloodshed, the middle-Englanders must fret constantly about the property prices...



John

PS. Laurie, there's no real issue to grasp here: smoking is an unnecessary, harmful and filthy activity which directly harms all of those around it. Pollution from (say) transportation is often a side-effect of a sadly essential activity - things must be transported. Dumbing the argument down a bit, I agree, but there is a not-so-subtle difference here that I think the smokers chose to turn a blind eye to. As far as junk food. Well, that's another evil, but at least your hamburger doesn't give me CJD...

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:


PS it would seem that Paul Ranson and Matthew R are the only contributors that really seem have a grasp of the issues here



Laurie,

What you really mean is "Who agree with me". What breathtaking arrogance to phrase it as you've done.

On a fence-sitting note:

Perhaps the answer is to ban smoking in all places where food is handled/consumed/stored, in any place without adequate and regularly certified ventilation, where kids are allowed and/or where there is currently no provision for or viability of providing fully clean air zones.

Makes sense to me. I would settle for that compromise. The choice of the pubs would be simple: food, or smoking. Never the twain should meet.

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Top Cat:

quote:

---

where Midsomer Murders is filmed

---

Completely off-topic, but whenever I have cause to see any of this crazy little drama, I have to question the sanity of anyone remaining in Midsomer. After all, it's a small town - I'm surprised there's anyone left.

Also, getting life insurance there must be tricky. And with all that bloodshed, the middle-Englanders must fret constantly about the property prices...



John

---

I have questioned my missus on this, and apparently 'Midsomer' is the county, not the town. That's where the scope for constant bloodshed comes from. How she managed to maintain her attention long enough to figure this out is beyond me.

I hate it; it's like watching a full-length Daily Mail advert.

quote:

---

What you really mean is "Who agree with me". What breathtaking arrogance to phrase it as you've done.

---

You are quite right

I have been justly reprimanded

Point conceded

Laurie

Laurie

quote:

---

or completely missed the point that the majority of Scots don't want smoking in enclosed spaces.

---

That seems extremely unlikely to be the case.

quote:

---

If you don't like it don't come to Scotland.

---

Personally I don't care. I'm more concerned about the principle, especially regarding a legal activity, civil liberty and private enterprise.

Still nobody's offered any moral argument as to why I should be forbidden from opening a smoking establishment for the enjoyment of smokers.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Still nobody's offered any moral argument as to why I should be forbidden from opening a smoking establishment for the enjoyment of smokers.

Paul

---

Not a moral argument, but you should be forbidden to employ anyone at that establishment (unless they work in sealed off rooms with air-locks). Health and Safety rules should apply throughout.


Regards

Stephen

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on Fri 12 November 2004 at 12:11.]

The views of anyone who posts on this subject and who is a smoker, are, in my opinion, totally invalid.

You can't trust anything a drug addict says about their own drug. All they can to do is react to their own guilt by dragging others into the addiction alongside them. They are the (un?)witting apologists for a buisiness whose only purpose is to make money at the expense of peoples health.

I'm dissapointed with Matthew's responses on this subject, as I tend to agree with his views in the main; but that only shows how much an addiction can muddle even such a biting, reasoned, intellect.

Regards

Stephen

We should encourage people to smoke IMO. The tax income will fund my pension, as well as removing vast quanities of the over 60's from the pension pot. Imagine how the 'Pension Timebomb' would look if there were 20% more oldies around.

As for Stats on the subject, most are completely bobbins and not to be belived. It's a bit like the anti speeding lobby suggesting that 30% of accidents are due to excessive speed, but when you look at the figures it's actually 7%.

The links between passive smoking and death rate are very dubious and just about impossible to prove one way or the other.

Stephen,

If it is dangerous enough for it to be a Health & Safety issue then you absolutely have to solve the problem of people with children smoking at home. The only logical way to do this is to make it illegal -- something I would favour if it really is as dangerous as passive smoking research suggests.

FWIW I am a non-smoker and would prefer if pubs were smoke free.

Matthew