Smoking in public to be banned!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

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.

---

There have been a few surveys which all seemed to indicate between 65-75% in favour of the ban. I haven't seen any others indicating anything other than support for the ban up here, but as always it's not easy to judge how fair those surveys were.

quote:

---

There have been a few surveys which all seemed to indicate between 65-75% in favour of the ban

---

So now we ban things because a majorty doesn't like it do we. Foxhunting, Smoking, Drinking? Islam?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

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

---

That I can handle!

TomK

quote:

---

That I can handle!

---

I respectfully suggest, in my opinion, that Paul`s and Matthew`s views make the most sense

On the substantive point, IMO, Paul is right on the nail. The new banning law is an unjustified infringement of personal freedom

laurie S

Matthewr said

quote:

---

seagull...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.

---

I live in a small town, the demand for real ale is sufficient to support one good pub. Two competing for the same trade would not be sustainable for either. Knowing the landlord as I do (over 20 years!) I know that there will not be a voluntary ban at the Local Pub.

It would not be cost effective to make the structural changes to physically separate drinking areas into smoking and non-smoking which would be the most satisfactory solution without the legislation. Ditto food and non-food rooms or a family room etc which could also satisfy the requirement to separate smoking and non-smoking areas (a 'No Smoking Area' sign hanging from the ceiling is surprisingly inadequate in preventing smoke straying into the non-smoking areas of most pubs/restaurants)

I am sure that this situation is repeated in many small towns throughout the country where there is one pub that puts real ale first. This obviously affects villages as well where there is only one pub (if it hasn't been converted into flats!)

Another option... most of the smokers at the pub drink either London Pride or the lager. The bitter drinkers amongst them rarely, if ever, drink anything else whereas the non-smokers tend to be more adventurous and drink the guest beers. If I could persuade Peter (Who?) to stop selling both then the smokers will drift away leaving the pub to those of us whose taste buds are not shot to pieces by tobacco.

p.s. Before anyone says anything, London Pride is a fine pint and I drink it often when somewhere other than the Local Pub, just never there.

seagull,

If your landlord's core trade (the real ale drinker's presumably) has a strong majority wish for a non-smoking pub then he'd be a fool not to change. The fact that he doesn't want to change rather strongly implies that most of his paying customers are happy for it to remain smoking. There seems little justification for a law to interfere with that process (Health reason aside -- like I said if it's deadly for non-smokers it should be banned outright not just in pubs).

Also note that your landlord (assuming it's a typical local pub in a small town) probably barely makes a living and a ban might well tip him over the edge and end up either with him closing down, selling up to a chain with it's Cooking Lager and fruit machines or else changing beyond recognition. In wishing for a ban you might end up with a non-smoking pub that sells pan fried Monkfish and Sauvignon Blanc rather than Summer Lightning and Pork Scratchings.

Matthew

quote:

---

Not a moral argument, but you should be forbidden to employ anyone at that establishment

---

I can employ smokers who will be happy to be allowed to smoke at work.

quote:

---

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

---

The views of any ex-smoker, or non-smoker who finds smoke abnormally uncomfortable, or has 'allergies' are completely invalid. It appears there is no way to get reason out of such people.

Paul

I re-iterate. If so many are in favour of smoke free pubs why doesn't someone open one up and make a killing? If it were a success others would quickly follow and you would have a de facto ban in the majority of pubs.

If you want to nudge the market in the right direction, then don't ban it, but licence it and (i reckon) quickly you'll find an equilibrium where some old school working mens pubs and pubs full of young people allow smoking and the majority ("family" pubs, pubs for nice middle class people, etc) don't.

Matthew

quote:

---

Which, that you've missed the point or that Scots don't want smoking in public. The first will never be resolved; the second is well documented. As I've said above there has been a year long consultation process in which the majority wished to see smoking curbed in public.

---

So a majority wanting to curb smoking in public mutates into support for a blanket ban. I don't think it's me missing the point.

If you bothered to research this you'd see your First Minister reported thus,

"The health arguments far outweighed lingering public disquiet about a complete ban and claims by the licensed trade that jobs would be lost, he told MSPs."

FWIW the damage to health from secondary exposure in pubs and bars is trivial compared to that of people living with smokers, and all that's trivial compared to the damage to the smokers own health. Bans like this are examples of authoritarian politicians strutting rather than grasping nettles and attacking the actual problem.

Paul

If three foreign holidays a year and a brand new car every three years constitutes barely making a living then yes

He never pays any attention to the regulars opinions...

a) Summer Lightning remains an occasional guest beer rather than a regular despite it being the favourite of a large minority of the regulars.
b) An excellent suggestion for this year's New Years Eve bash has been ignored in favour of a Mexican night because they happen to hav sombreros and ponchos are in this year
c) He's an occasional smoker himself (don't tell Julie) who cannot smoke at home...

It's most likely to become a Fullers pub than anything else as they've been sniffing round for years and don't have a foothold in the town yet. Its not large enough for the Cooking lager chains to bother with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

I can employ smokers who will be happy to be allowed to smoke at work.

---

You couldn't employ someone to work in a dangerous ionising radiation environment no matter how much they wanted to. The law is there to protect people from unscrupulous employers such as yourself from exploiting people who are desperate to work. The same should apply to smoke filled environments.

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
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.

---

I tend to agree. At least smoking when pregnant should be an offence, IMHO. However, banning would not work; it doesn't with drugs. The only way to cope with the problem as a society is to let the addicts who really want to destroy themselves, have help available to those who need or want it it and to make sure they do it in private. But there are no easy answers.

The data from Ireland shows a reduction in smokers since the ban. That can only be a good thing (except for Paul R and the Tobacco industry)

quote:

---

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

Matthew

---

You're too liberal to be a socialist.

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

On the substantive point, IMO, Paul is right on the nail. The new banning law is an unjustified infringement of personal freedom

laurie S

---

A ban on something that is harmful to others isn't an infringement of a right. It's like drink driving. Driving isn't illegal when done within the law - but there are restrictions. It's the same with smoking.

Do you smoke Laurie? (Just trying to see where we stand)

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

The views of any ex-smoker, or non-smoker who finds smoke abnormally uncomfortable, or has 'allergies' are completely invalid. It appears there is no way to get reason out of such people.

Paul

---

I have good science and data on my side. That is only your opinion as a drug addict (I assume, as you wont actually admit to smoking)

Stephen

The research in Scotland also shows people to be in favour of exceptions. To quote the First Minister:

"As I said in my statement, one of the most interesting things about opinion surveys on this issue is the way in which the answers that people give to the questions that are posed differ depending on the questions that are posed. If people are asked whether they want an all-out ban, huge numbers of them say, "Yes". If people are asked whether they want exemptions, and if specific exemptions like pubs or other examples are mentioned, a huge majority of people again say that they are in favour."

Which probably hints at why we don't have non-smoking pubs springing up by themselves -- most people aren't that bothered.

Stephen said "You couldn't employ someone to work in a dangerous ionising radiation environment no matter how much they wanted to"

Becuase radiation in the workplace has been shown to be deadly. Passive smoking certainly appears to have potential for harm but it's not at all clear how much. The Scottish research claims 1,000 deaths per year from passive smoking but they don't say how many of those are people who passive smoke via their employment and how many via living with a smoker.

Actually every time I read the information on smoking and health I come to the conclusion that the most sensible way forward is just to ban smoking full stop.

"However, banning would not work; it doesn't with drugs"

Smoking as an addiction works rather differently than drugs like heroin and, if it were banned, the vast majority of people would give up and, within 2 months, would thank you for it.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by matthewr:
Becuase radiation in the workplace has been shown to be deadly.
Matthew

---

Maybe I should have toned it down to things like Ethanol or Methanol or mercury - all banned from general use.

I'm pretty sure these subtances kill less people per year than passive smoking does.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
This is even more stupid than the stupid comment it was posted in response to!

[This message was edited by Patrick Dixon on

---

Explain why my comment was 'stupid' Or are you the kind of person who, when told by a junkie that heroin is OK really, just says 'of course! I must have got it all wrong'?

Stephen

quote:

---

I have good science and data on my side.

---

Show me. The last time this came I up I tried very hard to find good science relating to social passive smoking being harmful. There's little or none. A lot of opinion, numbers pulled from the air, argument from personal disbelief, little science.

quote:

---

That is only your opinion as a drug addict (I assume, as you wont actually admit to smoking)

---

I've never smoked. Empirically I've found that those most vehemently anti-smoking are ex-smokers. I assume you to be in this category.

Most people don't find it a huge problem. I suspect that if lives are saved in Scotland it will be because smokers will be discouraged from drinking so much.

Paul

quote:

---

A ban on something that is harmful to others isn't an infringement of a right. It's like drink driving. Driving isn't illegal when done within the law - but there are restrictions. It's the same with smoking.

Do you smoke Laurie? (Just trying to see where we stand)

---

For the record I do not smoke

I fully accept that smoking inside public buildings is harmful and unacceptable

As far as OPEN public spaces are concerned I accept that it can be unpleasant, but my point is , no more so than many other activities whichj are not going to be banned, eg car exhaust, hamburger stands, fat peple...where do I stop

The issues I raise are two fold

(1)It is hypocritical, for, say, car drivers to advocate banning smoking in OPEN public places

(2) It is an infringement of my right, given that smoking is LEGAL, to open an establishment for smokers, and then be forced to ban smoking in it because a non-smoker wishes to use it

Hope that is clear

Laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

Show me. The last time this came I up I tried very hard to find good science relating to social passive smoking being harmful.

---

How about this for a start. You haven't looked around much then! This was so good the company supressed the findings.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&ncid=751&e=11&u=/afp/20041110/hl_afp/health_disease_cancer

quote:

---

I've never smoked. Empirically I've found that those most vehemently anti-smoking are ex-smokers. I assume you to be in this category.

Paul

---

I've never smoked. I may be daft but I'm not stupid. I value my life & health and that of my friends too much.

Stephen

So the most vehement anti 'smoking ban' people here are non-smokers?

And you aren't even paid by the tobacco industry to do their dirty work? They must love you lot....

Amazing!



Stephen

Tom

Off topic-ally, you were briefly discussed in the dressing room at the Spitz monday by me & Steve Lawson.



In between the coughing and smoke related eye watering that is.



Stephen

Patrick said "I think it's just too much of a risk. If you have a successful business, why do something that [...]"

Becuase there is meant to be an overwhelming majority in favour of non-smoking pubs. Consequently one would assume it's not risky at all. If as is implied it's impossible for someone to open a non-smoking pub without going out of business this strongly implies that the idea of non-smoking pubs is not remotely as popular as is being suggested.

Stephen said "when told by a junkie that heroin is OK really"

Actually heroin is ok really. At least in the sense that its a very benign low risk drug and far less dangerous than, say, alcohol or parecetamol. Being addicted to illegal heroin is, of course, profoundly dangerous and indeed very likely to "screw you up". Or at least lead to you spending a lot of time hanging around Kings Cross agreeing to perform unpleasant acts on Members of Parliament for pitifully small amounts of money.

Matthew

PS I had the Bangers & Mash at The Spitz the other Sunday and it was cold. Their house Sauvingon Blanc was also not Suavignon Blanc and anyway tasted like week old piss.

quote:

---

How about this for a start.

---

That's the best you can do? Where's the science that relates the hearsay damage to passively smoking rats to the exposure you might get in a pub?

We know roughly how dangerous smoking is, so how dangerous is the smoking part of going to the pub? Compared to other common risks? Like drinking in the pub? Or walking along a busy road? Or being stuck in a traffic jam?

Paul

I was in The Spitz the bar/rastaraunt, the music happens in "Upstairs at The Spitz" which is, erm, upstairs.

I have been to one gig at "Upstairs at The Spitz" which had Charles Mingus's illegitimate son doing sub-Blues Brothers blues singing and some cunt in a Fedora (I think technically its not possible to wear a fedora and avoid cuntishness so maybe that is redundant) doing contemporary Jazz noodling (which upped his Fedora crimes another notch).

We left and went downstairs where there was beer, some DJ playing salsa-y type house and lots of attractive Spanish girls. There was also a really famous Jazz pianist in there as well; really famous that is by the standards of contemp. Jazz (I suspect John C. was the only person who knew his name let alone recognised him).

All in all, cold over priced food aside, it's a pretty cool place.

Matthew