Smoking ban

Originally posted by adam777
Just to focus on one aspect of Stoneman's post. The licensed trade have nobody to blame but themselves on this issue. For years and years the extent of catering to non-smokers was putting some 'no smoking' signs on two tables in the corner of the pub and that was magically supposed to filter the air.

I am the worst kind of non-smoker, I am an ex-smoker and yes I guess that makes me a hypocrite. However if the licensed trade had dealt with this responsibly, and had (in overwhelming numbers) instituted meaningful changes in their establishments then this legislation could have been delayed by years if not decades.

Instead they chose to take short term profits over long term customer care and now they are complaining they will lose business. They ignored the issue for years and now it has bitten them in the butt.

I, for one, will not lose any sleep over it.

I do not agree with this. The licenced trade has bent over backwards to make this work. Whetherspoons had 10% non smoking pubs, there are at least 5 non smoking places in nottingham, The LVA offered the solution that if they served food they would become non smoking, the LVA offered to install ventilation systems that would extract 90% of the smoke. They asked that members clubs be exempt, so that the members could vote. What you are suggesting is that ALL pubs should have had large amounts of their space turned over to the non smokers.
Lets get to the core of this. It is nothing to do with the health aspect, I for one, do not believe that passive smoking causes cancer( but that is an aside, and we can discuss that at length in another topic if you wish, where I will present my arguments), it is purely that it annoys people, and that is no reason to ban it. Lets face it, drink problems cause far more deaths and total devastation to families of alcoholics than smoking, so what's to stop the powers that be to start placing restrictions on how much you can drink, now that would cause the populous to rise up. This is about peoples rights, if you don't like smokey atmosphere, go to a non smoking pub, as for the staff, surely they could inform them of the status of the place, and they could accept the position or not.

Originally posted by adam777
Just to focus on one aspect of Stoneman's post. The licensed trade have nobody to blame but themselves on this issue. For years and years the extent of catering to non-smokers was putting some 'no smoking' signs on two tables in the corner of the pub and that was magically supposed to filter the air.

I am the worst kind of non-smoker, I am an ex-smoker and yes I guess that makes me a hypocrite. However if the licensed trade had dealt with this responsibly, and had (in overwhelming numbers) instituted meaningful changes in their establishments then this legislation could have been delayed by years if not decades.

Instead they chose to take short term profits over long term customer care and now they are complaining they will lose business. They ignored the issue for years and now it has bitten them in the butt.

I, for one, will not lose any sleep over it.

I do not agree with this. The licenced trade has bent over backwards to make this work. Whetherspoons had 10% non smoking pubs, there are at least 5 non smoking places in nottingham, The LVA offered the solution that if they served food they would become non smoking, the LVA offered to install ventilation systems that would extract 90% of the smoke. They asked that members clubs be exempt, so that the members could vote. What you are suggesting is that ALL pubs should have had large amounts of their space turned over to the non smokers.
Lets get to the core of this. It is nothing to do with the health aspect, I for one, do not believe that passive smoking causes cancer( but that is an aside, and we can discuss that at length in another topic if you wish, where I will present my arguments), it is purely that it annoys people, and that is no reason to ban it. Lets face it, drink problems cause far more deaths and total devastation to families of alcoholics than smoking, so what's to stop the powers that be to start placing restrictions on how much you can drink, now that would cause the populous to rise up. This is about peoples rights, if you don't like smokey atmosphere, go to a non smoking pub, as for the staff, surely they could inform them of the status of the place, and they could accept the position or not.

[fozzyo]

While the sentiment is good about if you don't like the atmosphere go to a non-smoking pub / club / bar / whatever. Unfortunately have to ask ... just how many of those are there? And why is that?

Well I go out with my group of friends, 7 of us don't smoke but one does. So we go to a restaraunt that allows them to smoke.

Without forcing the issue we will never be without it. Yes some of the requirements of the law are a bit mad - do I need to have a sign on my dinning room door as it doubles as my massage practice? But it is for the overall good of the people - in 2005 only 25% of adults smoked. The other 75% of us have to put up with air pollution, is that really fare?

A pub full of people drinking doesn't cause my eyes to sting, my throat to dry up, my clothes to stink, and poisons my lungs. A pub full of people drinking with 10 of them Smoking does.

And lets not forget the license / hospitality trade has now lost a significant revenue stream.

Mat

[fozzyo]

While the sentiment is good about if you don't like the atmosphere go to a non-smoking pub / club / bar / whatever. Unfortunately have to ask ... just how many of those are there? And why is that?

Well I go out with my group of friends, 7 of us don't smoke but one does. So we go to a restaraunt that allows them to smoke.

Without forcing the issue we will never be without it. Yes some of the requirements of the law are a bit mad - do I need to have a sign on my dinning room door as it doubles as my massage practice? But it is for the overall good of the people - in 2005 only 25% of adults smoked. The other 75% of us have to put up with air pollution, is that really fare?

A pub full of people drinking doesn't cause my eyes to sting, my throat to dry up, my clothes to stink, and poisons my lungs. A pub full of people drinking with 10 of them Smoking does.

And lets not forget the license / hospitality trade has now lost a significant revenue stream.

Mat

I think the emphasis should be more on the smoker to go where smoking is allowed rather than a non smoker have to look around for a smokeless zone.

The argument that the ban is wrong or that passive smoking isn't harmfull is ridiculous and smokers kidding themselves that smoking isn't harmful, I know I have done it for the past 20 odd years and am gagging for a fag now and trying very hard to ignore all ythe lame excuses and poor me and my rights argujments.

Also using one bad habit to justify another is just nonsence.

Smoke outside and enjoy your fags ( I know I'd love one lol ) but theres no need to whine because others don't have to put up with it anymore.

I think the emphasis should be more on the smoker to go where smoking is allowed rather than a non smoker have to look around for a smokeless zone.

The argument that the ban is wrong or that passive smoking isn't harmfull is ridiculous and smokers kidding themselves that smoking isn't harmful, I know I have done it for the past 20 odd years and am gagging for a fag now and trying very hard to ignore all ythe lame excuses and poor me and my rights argujments.

Also using one bad habit to justify another is just nonsence.

Smoke outside and enjoy your fags ( I know I'd love one lol ) but theres no need to whine because others don't have to put up with it anymore.

[Pete]

Being a non-smoker (594 days, 7 hours, 22 minutes and 42 seconds... but who's counting?), I have to admit I prefer to be in a non-smoking environment; but I don't get particularly upset if I am around tobacco smoke either.

I think perhaps we view smokers as easy targets and use some pretty spurious arguments to support reasons why they should all be run out of town. The air pollution thing can be a little too exaggerated, given the amount of noxious fumes pumped out by cars (think, for instance, how you'd fare in a sealed room with several smokers puffing away compared to one with a car pumping carbon monoxide in). Why is there no witchhunt of the school-run mum? That's not to say cigarette smoke is safe, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's not good for you.

Supporters from both sides often use the 'rights' argument ('my right to smoke' / 'my right to breathe clean air'), and I personally think such emotive language doesn't help to progress the debate. At the moment it would seem the non-smokers are getting it all their own way, although they can hardly claim that with the absence of tobbaco smoke what they're left with is 'clean'. Certainly not in urban areas, anyway. (Experiment 1: Try blowing your nose after an afternoon strolling up Oxford Street, London. Very little of that black crap up your hooter started as a ciggy.)

But that said, I do admit I like it now when I can get home without my jacket stinking of smoke just because I went for a couple of pints after a meeting in town. God knows what I must of smelt like myself when I used to smoke 40 of the buggers a day.

[Pete]

Being a non-smoker (594 days, 7 hours, 22 minutes and 42 seconds... but who's counting?), I have to admit I prefer to be in a non-smoking environment; but I don't get particularly upset if I am around tobacco smoke either.

I think perhaps we view smokers as easy targets and use some pretty spurious arguments to support reasons why they should all be run out of town. The air pollution thing can be a little too exaggerated, given the amount of noxious fumes pumped out by cars (think, for instance, how you'd fare in a sealed room with several smokers puffing away compared to one with a car pumping carbon monoxide in). Why is there no witchhunt of the school-run mum? That's not to say cigarette smoke is safe, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's not good for you.

Supporters from both sides often use the 'rights' argument ('my right to smoke' / 'my right to breathe clean air'), and I personally think such emotive language doesn't help to progress the debate. At the moment it would seem the non-smokers are getting it all their own way, although they can hardly claim that with the absence of tobbaco smoke what they're left with is 'clean'. Certainly not in urban areas, anyway. (Experiment 1: Try blowing your nose after an afternoon strolling up Oxford Street, London. Very little of that black crap up your hooter started as a ciggy.)

But that said, I do admit I like it now when I can get home without my jacket stinking of smoke just because I went for a couple of pints after a meeting in town. God knows what I must of smelt like myself when I used to smoke 40 of the buggers a day.

I for one, do not believe that passive smoking causes cancer( but that is an aside, and we can discuss that at length in another topic if you wish, where I will present my arguments),

Please do, I have often wondered why my Grandmother died of throat cancer having never smoked a cigarette in her life but lived with my Grandfather who smoked 40 a day.
Will you be presenting a smoker in denial type argument or scientific facts? I was once hauled over the coals on this very forum for not presenting facts (Scrooge I think). GJ even reverted to his Charles Dickens alter ego in his postings. So Sir, please present facts and only facts Sir.

I for one, do not believe that passive smoking causes cancer( but that is an aside, and we can discuss that at length in another topic if you wish, where I will present my arguments),

Please do, I have often wondered why my Grandmother died of throat cancer having never smoked a cigarette in her life but lived with my Grandfather who smoked 40 a day.
Will you be presenting a smoker in denial type argument or scientific facts? I was once hauled over the coals on this very forum for not presenting facts (Scrooge I think). GJ even reverted to his Charles Dickens alter ego in his postings. So Sir, please present facts and only facts Sir.

[Decker]

Facts are indeed to be preferred over circumstantial inferences. Cancer exists in the absence of cigarettes. Its presence is therefore not an a priori proof of cause and effect. Funnily I believed that passive smoking and cancer are linked as do

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_informatio ... smoke.html
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

etc ad nauseam. But regretfully your Grandmother's cancer no more proves passive smoking as cause than does the fact that your Grandfather who smoked 40 a day continued to live prove that cigarettes are not harmful.

[Decker]

Facts are indeed to be preferred over circumstantial inferences. Cancer exists in the absence of cigarettes. Its presence is therefore not an a priori proof of cause and effect. Funnily I believed that passive smoking and cancer are linked as do

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_informatio ... smoke.html
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

etc ad nauseam. But regretfully your Grandmother's cancer no more proves passive smoking as cause than does the fact that your Grandfather who smoked 40 a day continued to live prove that cigarettes are not harmful.

Here's a FACT.

I no longer have to go home STINKING of OTHER peoples smoke any more.

As you will no doubt gather - I'm quite pleased about that.

Kindest Regards

John

Here's a FACT.

I no longer have to go home STINKING of OTHER peoples smoke any more.

As you will no doubt gather - I'm quite pleased about that.

Kindest Regards

John

it is purely that it annoys people, and that is no reason to ban it

Sure is in my opinion; 'anti-social behaviour' is annoying...
Why should non-smokers be inconvenienced and, if we want to visit a pub, end up with clothes that smell of smoke and a scratchy throat? Anyway, maybe if the social aspect of smoking is removed and people are forced outside, more people will quit.

45.

it is purely that it annoys people, and that is no reason to ban it

Sure is in my opinion; 'anti-social behaviour' is annoying...
Why should non-smokers be inconvenienced and, if we want to visit a pub, end up with clothes that smell of smoke and a scratchy throat? Anyway, maybe if the social aspect of smoking is removed and people are forced outside, more people will quit.

45.

[fozzyo]

I know several people who know just won't both smoking when going out. This is a good thing.

[fozzyo]

I know several people who know just won't both smoking when going out. This is a good thing.

But regretfully your Grandmother's cancer no more proves passive smoking as cause than does the fact that your Grandfather who smoked 40 a day continued to live prove that cigarettes are not harmful.

Mmm, jumped to a bit of conclusion there Decker. Where did I mention that my Grandfather outlived my Grandmother?

But regretfully your Grandmother's cancer no more proves passive smoking as cause than does the fact that your Grandfather who smoked 40 a day continued to live prove that cigarettes are not harmful.

Mmm, jumped to a bit of conclusion there Decker. Where did I mention that my Grandfather outlived my Grandmother?

Originally posted by Paul H
I for one, do not believe that passive smoking causes cancer( but that is an aside, and we can discuss that at length in another topic if you wish, where I will present my arguments),

Please do, I have often wondered why my Grandmother died of throat cancer having never smoked a cigarette in her life but lived with my Grandfather who smoked 40 a day.
Will you be presenting a smoker in denial type argument or scientific facts? I was once hauled over the coals on this very forum for not presenting facts (Scrooge I think). GJ even reverted to his Charles Dickens alter ego in his postings. So Sir, please present facts and only facts Sir.

You see this is where the problem lies. No-one has any facts one way or another, we all just have arguments. You can point to as many asteemed researchers as you like, and I can to do the same. So to say that I have to deal in facts applies to you as well. And my sincere condolences about your grandmother.

Originally posted by Paul H
I for one, do not believe that passive smoking causes cancer( but that is an aside, and we can discuss that at length in another topic if you wish, where I will present my arguments),

Please do, I have often wondered why my Grandmother died of throat cancer having never smoked a cigarette in her life but lived with my Grandfather who smoked 40 a day.
Will you be presenting a smoker in denial type argument or scientific facts? I was once hauled over the coals on this very forum for not presenting facts (Scrooge I think). GJ even reverted to his Charles Dickens alter ego in his postings. So Sir, please present facts and only facts Sir.

You see this is where the problem lies. No-one has any facts one way or another, we all just have arguments. You can point to as many asteemed researchers as you like, and I can to do the same. So to say that I have to deal in facts applies to you as well. And my sincere condolences about your grandmother.

[Decker]

Originally posted by Paul H
But regretfully your Grandmother's cancer no more proves passive smoking as cause than does the fact that your Grandfather who smoked 40 a day continued to live prove that cigarettes are not harmful.

Mmm, jumped to a bit of conclusion there Decker. Where did I mention that my Grandfather outlived my Grandmother?

Mmm, jumped to a bit of conclusion there Paul. Where did I suggest that he outlived your Grandmother? I merely mentioned his ability to keep living whilst smoking 40 a day. Although on reflection I can see that my statement was ambiguous. As was yours. However I do not consider the death of anyone known to another in conversation a suitable foil for semantic arguments. So I will desist.

[Decker]

Originally posted by Paul H
But regretfully your Grandmother's cancer no more proves passive smoking as cause than does the fact that your Grandfather who smoked 40 a day continued to live prove that cigarettes are not harmful.

Mmm, jumped to a bit of conclusion there Decker. Where did I mention that my Grandfather outlived my Grandmother?

Mmm, jumped to a bit of conclusion there Paul. Where did I suggest that he outlived your Grandmother? I merely mentioned his ability to keep living whilst smoking 40 a day. Although on reflection I can see that my statement was ambiguous. As was yours. However I do not consider the death of anyone known to another in conversation a suitable foil for semantic arguments. So I will desist.

Shall we agree that in future, neither of us will jump to anything.