New possibility of a total smoking ban in England

Using logic's pointless Steve. Must be something in amongst all the carcinogens that disables the smoker's ability to think logically or considerately.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Eric,

Are you reformed then? I take it you have no difficulty with a pipe, either. Fredrik

Fredrik,

No, I have never smoked nor have I ever dated a woman who smoked (with one exception) and nor would I ever. I went to a dinner party in Chelsea once when one poor chap farted by accident and a stuck up woman (who was smoking during the meal) said 'oh you disgusting man!' I defended him by saying that farting was at least better than smoking and she repied 'oh dont be so bloody stupid' (she was a real cow this one) I pointed out that farting was a natural and beneficial bodily function whereas smoking was not. I went on to say that farting never gave anyone cancer, hardening of the arteries, heart disease or bad breath. Some of the other guests offered other reasons why farting should be more socially acceptable than smoking and within 30 mins we had listed 60 separate reasons (my favourite being you can't smoke under your bath water....)I cant remember all 60 now but if anyone would like to contribute any ideas please do. The smoking hag-bitch was not amused, declared us all barking and left. Good riddence says I. As for pipe smoke - some of it smells ok but I still wouldn't date a woman with a pipe.

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:

[...] As for pipe smoke - some of it smells ok but I still wouldn't date a woman with a pipe.

Cheers!

Nice one Eric! But actually now you mention it I used to know the most amazing woman who smoked clay pipes, followed hounds on foot, and ran a farm single handed, having lost her husband. In a way she was an honary man, but she was a kind person, whom I have very fond memories of. She was very good with children, though she had none of her own. You may also see that if I grew up in an environment where such characters were regarded as normal, that I am out of my time in the 21st century, and so am likely to seem rather non-PC myself sometimes. I just think there ought to room for alsorts, which is less and less the case. I smoke a pipe as well, but it takes too long in the confines of a half hour lunch break. How I wish life allowed for the time to gently relax, rather than push-push all the time, and then for next to nought. In the old days we used to do more I am sure before all the nanying to make people work, and so on. Yes, indeed, I am out of my time, and know all too well...

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
In a way she was an honary man, but she was a kind person,

Honary loony, you mean. She probably hunted her husband down one dark night - he was probably her brother, after all.



Stephen

(I realise that this poat is in bad taste; but not as bad, IMHO, as smoking when others can around.)

Certainly you concede that your post IS indeed in bad taste, but often I find that criticism like this says more about the purveyor if it than the the subject under discussion!

It seems that Political Correctness is indeed a one way street, somewhat like Fascisim, but then, no doubt, you will will find this post offensive as well, and two wrongs do not make a right; But I justify this on the grounds that what I am calling for a breadth and tollerance whilst you and the PC brigade seems to find itself in the strangely arrogant possition of deciding what is to be tollerated, and then insisiting all else is wrong and not to be countenanced but ridiculed and even insulted, which is indeed Fascism, only moderated because we have fortunately not yet re-introduced eugenics or the concentration camp. Having narrowed our lives by increments, we shall indeed find ourselves living less tollerable lives! For the sake of Liberal roundness, accept that not everyone who does things differently to yourself is not some incestuous inbred, too simple to comprehend your splendid world. I acually suspect that broad-minded people understand those who hide behind PC platitudes well enough, to be fair...

Fredrik

quote:

It seems that Political Correctness is indeed a one way street, somewhat like Fascisim, but then, no doubt, you will will find this post offensive as well,

Fredrik

Not offensive, just incredibly amazed that you compare the consideration of the views and health of others to be the same as the gassing of jews and the persecution of other minorities.

'Political correctness' has given us tolerance of religion, race and sexual orientation, tolerance of alternative lifestyles (as long as other people aren't harmed.), yet a greater freedom of speech and expression than any time in the past.

It seems that anyone, with no real argument, will jump on the 'you're being a nazi' bandwagon rather than bothering to indulge in a proper debate. It's lazier than making jokes or sarcasm. And, as you ascertain, it says a lot about the poster. Two hundred years ago you could murder and rape without being prosecuted if you were of a certain social status. I'm sure those people blamed 'PC' for spoiling their 'fun'. I can imagine them complaining in a similar fashion to you.

OK, on second thoughts, I am offended by your comparison.

Stephen

Dear Stephen,

I don't make that comparison. I would not. But the PC thing indeed is only a matter of degree (a huge factor, but still a factor, never-the-less) different. The question of tollerance is one that is vital to the success of the human race in its wrestle to sort out the world's problems - and at that these are related to the exponential growth in the human population - without resort to warfare or even fascist solutions.

I quite agree that there are places where smoking would be better banned, but I happen to believe that a pub not selling food is not one of them. Steve Toy makes the points above, even if I shade slightly differently in details, I agree with his basic points. I see no problem if the staff themselves smoke, and are appointed on that basis. Equally I would totally support non-smoking pubs, and I am sure that publicans and companies who run pub-chains would have done it years ago if they thought it would work. Maybe there is a case for giving them legal backing, so they could insist, all the more, that guest who insist on flouting house rules be ejected with the backing of legal sanction, but a total ban is one step too far in my view. A view is all that it is however, and in a democracy I see no reason to do more than have a say, and then accept the law as handed down by a parliament ellected in a more or less democratic fashion, and a fashion which we are at liberty to avoid by emigrating if we find it unacceptable.

Anyway, your comment that I am being lazy, and would be better to adopt humour, or even sarcasm, in preference to the approach I adopt, is again only a matter of position, and I have no intention of become sarcastic, or even attempting humour in the context here, where it is so likely to de-contextualised!

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
What if the workers also smoke (as in not passively)?

So do you specify smokers only in the job description then?

Do you specify how many fags they smoke a day (i.e. so that the balance of ingestion is more direct than passive)?

What happens if an employee who smokes wants to give up (or are told to do so by their doctor)?

Do you vet candidates to confirm they really are smokers and not just trying to get the job because they need the money?

When is one of the pro-smoking folks going to answer the above points?

"I quite agree that there are places where smoking would be better banned, but I happen to believe that a pub not selling food is not one of them."

O.k Fredrik - do you know of any pubs not selling food because I don't and given the huge profit margins on food, the chances of one of them knocking it on the head are pretty slim IMHO.

The ludicrous thing is that when this ban comes in, the die-hards (pun intended), will probably spend ages scouting around for the few pubs and clubs which have decided to knock cuisine on the head.

Whilst this is great for non-smokers,(the smokers will all be in one place, probably those revolting smoking rooms in airports), it does beg the question, "isn't it simply easier to slap a few patches on and give up?".

Dear Steve,

I doubt if there is a smoker in the land who has not been 'advised' to give up by their GP.

If a bar tender give up smoking, if his conditions of employement require him to be so, then he or she ceases to be suitable for the job, and seek new employment. In a land where smoking is going to be banned almost everywhere except the home, getting a job elsewhere should not be impossible. Many are the instances where, for one reason or another, an employee is no longer a suitable person to hold down a specific job, and this routine is normal enough in many lines of work... could you imagine a sight-impaied surgeon, for example?

That is an answer, even if it is not the one you may be looking for.

All the best from Fredrik

Dear Jlfrs,

You make a point that is true, I am sure. It is quite probable that those who enjoy a smoke with a beer, will under the complete ban, actually find that the off-licence provides the answer. No partial ban is likely I would think, but if there was one, any pub would have to weigh up whether it is better to sell food, or sell beer alone. That would a choice that is quite clear and fair.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
That is an answer, even if it is not the one you may be looking for.

Anyone that thinks it's going to be legally workable for smoking to a condition of employment has clearly been smoking something stronger than tobacco.

Imagine the lawsuits from people dying from lung cancer - "I wanted to give up smoking but I'd have lost my job and I've a family to feed".

Idiocy.

Dear Steve,

I imagine that the only way that a publican would actually enter into such an agreement would be to protect himself against an an employee law-suit. If he felt that the option was lunacy, I doubt he would do it! I certainly would not put it in print in a contract of employement. But I would keep a good knowledge of my staff, were I in that position. It is quite easy to find out if a person smokes or has given up! Offer them a cigarette! But if they had been a regular smoker, then no case would stand up anyhow...

Fredrik

Contracts or not, surely anyone who actually chooses to work in an environment with known health risks loses any sympathy,let alone rights, should they seek to complain?

It's as daft as a soldier saying he didn't sign up to be sent to a war zone.

A total smoking ban will mean that hundreds of people will now have the opportunity to work in an environment which no longer carries a health warning.

In addition, the landlord won't have to allow for employees to take 5 minutes out every hour or so to indulge their habits, thereby ensuring good custom on both sides of the bar.

I used to know a very pleasant pub where the staff would come from behind the bar and enjoy their five minutes (or longer) off duty with the customers. Good atmosphere all round! But 'the times, they are a'chaingin.' Roll on the new, out with the old, and with it a good few characters and ways, but at this point I give up as work calls.

All the best to all who have tangled here. I more or less enjoyed all of it. Kindest regards from Fredrik

Fredrik - I'm sure there are plenty of pubs and other places where the staff are friendly and are allowed to join their customers when they have their breaks, for smoking or simply a cup of tea.

My point was more to do with the non-written extra term smokers insert into their working terms and conditions that they reserve the right to take breaks on a regular basis.In a customer facing role, I cannot honestly say it's good practice.

The only places I am aware of where this is actually the case are factories where regular hourly breaks ensure high quality of work by breaking the repetition.

If smokers went for a job interview and requested 2 morning and afternoon breaks plus lunch in most other conventional workplaces they probably wouldn't get the job.

Pubs are probably the exception - the landlord's only choice for bar staff is more than likely smokers or students from Australia on a gap year.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Not offensive, just incredibly amazed that you compare the consideration of the views and health of others to be the same as the gassing of jews and the persecution of other minorities.

Ah, but when doing the PC thing of considering the views and health of others, you're now persecuting the other minority of smokers.

If it's OK to cater for asians, black people, disabled people, the elderly, etc, then why is it also OK to stamp on and not cater for smokers?

BTW - 17 days of non-smoking here and counting

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
Ah, but when doing the PC thing of considering the views and health of others, you're now persecuting the other minority of smokers.

Surely it's protecting the non-smoking majority?

quote:

If it's OK to cater for asians, black people, disabled people, the elderly, etc, then why is it also OK to stamp on and not cater for smokers?

No-one is saying they can't smoke, just that their "right" to poison others is restricted.

I haven't worked in an office where smoking is allowed for at least a decade.

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
If it's OK to cater for asians, black people, disabled people, the elderly, etc, then why is it also OK to stamp on and not cater for smokers?

Because smokers are the only ones on your list who kill others by being smokers. You don't get lung cancer from being next to a disabled person or working in a pub full of asians - unless they smoke of course!

Stephen

Come on Domf, you know that's daft and not the same thing at all. Have you been down the pub lunchtime again?

I must confess to not having read this entire thread, however the following has struck me as a problem for the Government for some time.

There is a 20-30 (possibly more) year lag between the drop in revenues the Government would suffer through an effective campaign to stop smoking, and the burden on the national health system from current smokers.

How do they reconcile this? It's likely that they must be seen to be helping the populace to stop smoking, but actually, they coudn't afford (without unpopular taxation elsewhere) for them to stop in the foreseeable future.

I guess they would have to tax elsewhere.

At least currently smokers are paying for their own healthcare (to what extent I don't know)...

phil

Dear Phil,

There is no way I would submit to the surgeon's knife, whatever the advice. Just give me enough morphine to keep me quiet and I'll be happy, and save everyone an awful lot of trouble, and frankly, money as well, not troubling the public purse for a pension till a very ripe old age! By the way I would want the morphine all at once so I could be sure of the result, and its timing! Fredrik

The other consideration in reducing the number of people smoking is that the average age will increase and so will the number of years the "now non smokers " will be claimimg a pension.

What is needed is a private smoking rooms for smokers to exist to continue to pay additional tax and revenues and forfeiting their pension entitements.

Being a smoker in private is a patriotic duty

Fredrik - you are entitled to the best healthcare public money can buy because our health system is inclusive, not exclusive.

Similarly, if you live to a ripe old age,(though it is frankly unlikely if you smoke), why wait to claim your pension when you've every right to it at retirement.

Though smokers may be regarded as second class citizens by some, we are equal in this domocracy so if you've paid in, you're entitled to take out when you've every right to.

You have to wonder why I stareted at 35 to smoke. It was precisely to avoid getting very old. If I had the choice I would avoid that. I take a rather fatalistic view of old age. Too many members of my familly have survived into their nineties. I see nothing about the condition of of life at that age, that I aspire to! So I recokoned that that 30 to 35 years is normal enough from starting to smoke.

I don't tend to smoke infront of non-smokers, and never in front of children, or in restaurants. I shall miss it in the pub, but I'll get over it!

All the best to you all Fredrik