Smoking ban

Ditto; George's Meeting House in Exeter (a Wetherspoons) is totally smoke free, and although they can't keep their beer for sh*t, the total lack of smoke is amazing. I only ever smoke down the pub anyway, so not being able to do that easily'd stop me smoking completely.

Bring it on!

That said, pubs should be able to opt out; if a landlord wants a smoke-friendly pub, his staff should be able to sign a waiver to say they will not sue for the effects of smoke, since many bar staff (IME) smoke anyway. The ones that don't want to be subjected to smoke can work in the other pubs - it's not like barwork's hard to get is it?

EDIT: personally, I feel alcohol does FAR more damage than smoking; either the government should ban smoking AND drinking and forfeit the taxes from both, or legalise ALL drugs including H and crack, and tax them HEAVILY. After all, since they know smoking and drinking kill yet grow fat on the taxes, why not let junkies pay their way as well? Sod the UN - if they're happy enough to let dodgy factions go on about obliterating Israel while constructing nuclear weapons, what does a bit of hard drugs matter?

 

Erm, what!? That's the stupidest comment I've ever heard Gary; how exactly am I supposed to get to work and get paid? I *loathe* cars and their fumes (as do my contact lenses!) but if I don't leave the house I don't get paid, eat, etc.

How much carcinogenic crap do cars pump out? I'm curious here?? Let's face it - non-smokers drive cars.

OH, and as Bill Hicks (iirc) said, "non smokers die every day". :JPS:

 

Wise words from domfjbrown.

People deserve freedom of choice whatever they choose to do, I despise the whole nanny state thing. I'm all in favour of trying to encourage healthy living but there are limits to everything. After all as mentioned above, there are lots of ways that you can adversely affect other peoples health/environment other than by smoking; turning your car on, buying goods/services from companies/manufacturers that exploit workers or pollute the environment etc etc....

Anyway, maybe this is the answer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4382382.stm

A free cabbage with every pint in those pubs that choose to allow smoking! :MILD:

 

That's mad! I love cabbage I wander how they test this "genetic makeup" thing?

 

I would be happy with smoking pubs as longs as they would have to buy an expensive licence otherwise all pubs would essentialy be smoking ones.

I don't see don't think the cival liberties groups have any argument, none smokers also have rights not have poison go into their lungs.

 

The smoking ban also raises the old West Lothian Question. You gotta laugh at this government

 

I'm a non-smoker. Cannot abide the habit. In March 2006 it is planned that smoking will be banned in ALL public places. I would LOVE for this legislation to work. However, I would have conceded allowing a few exceptions to be made to the legislation if it meant that smokers have an alternative to standing out in the bitter cold or the rain. I just feel that in many places smokers will oppose the ban due to lack of alternatives. I think it would have a better chance of success if, say, smokers could go to strictly legislated 'smoking dens' (for want of a better term) - but how those 'dens' would be regulated is another question altogether.

Filthy habit, no excuse for it.

 

Oh, and whilst we're at it, can be ban old-school socialist, embittered Scottish Labour MPs? They're just as bad for the health of the nation

 

Especially when they vote for legislation that doesn't even apply in Scotland.

 

I'd be happy if pubs banned smoking on their premises - after all I have to breath it in, which as a non-smoker I don't really want to do.
However, I don't agree with legislating against smoking. It seems to me that more and more freedoms are being legislated against - and it seems bizarre that there's no consistancy.
Frinstance, we can kill the planet through over-use of resources - with no fear of anything but a large leccy bill if we leave our electric fires on 24/7...
But we can't go fox hunting (not that I'd personally want to).
The farmer next door to me can spray noxious organo-phosphates down wind from me to his heart's content, but I can't stop whoever has hunting rights from coming onto my land to shoot pheasants, or even to shoot my dogs should they catch a pheasant on my land!
I can feed my kids all the dodgy food in the world flavoured with aspartame, sunset yellow and tartrazine, after being bombarded by TV ads which make my kids hassle me for it; but I can't drive at more than 70mph on an empty motorway at 2 in the morning?
I can drink alcohol until my liver bursts from my body, but I can't have a spliff at a party?
I'd like a little more common sense and consitency, rather than pandering and reactionary behaviour from our law makers...

 

I don't think anybody is talking about banning smoking completly, just in public buildings and places of work.

The food issue is a really worrying but the government are already stopping junk food from being advertised on TV while kids are watching.

 

Being a smoker will be a reasonable requirement of a job in a smoking club.

And it's arguable that there is any significant danger. I've never seen good raw direct evidence and I've looked pretty hard.

Paul

 

And that's the only thing that would be worth talking about. The hypocrisy on display both here and in government is breath-taking (sic).

Paul

 

Aye... Seems that if you're susceptible (sp?) to cancer, that's what you'll get! You can attempt to minimise the risks, but genetic pre-disposition is difficult to fight.
I like fate as an argument, as, in common with belief, there's no way of disproving it!

 

As I've discovered, it isn't always the lawmakers who are solely to blame. This government has a relationship with the media based on manipulation. The media in turn whip up illiberal sentiments with the public as a whole in order to sell papers.

There is a report on ONE silly girl of 12 who gets through a fair mix of alcoholic beverages in a session and within a couple of days the government threatens supermarkets over underage sales of alcohol and orders them to take Bacardi Breezer amongst other alcopops off the shelves. Plenty of grown-ups like Bacardi Breezer.

Underage drinking, and people consuming alcohol with the objective of getting pissed is nothing new. When the bill for new licensing laws to come into effect in 4 weeks was first passed it had cross-bench support. Now both opposition parties are opposed to the changes all because of the press presenting "binge drinking" as a new phenomenon.

Members of the public are as guilty of knee-jerk reactions and failure to look beyond our foggy shores for answers to their concerns, and all the media does is exploit this to sell stories.

As for the smoking in public places question, market forces should decide the outcome regarding pubs and restaurants. I do agree with a ban on smoking in public spaces where people eat - this would allow both an element of choice (terribly unfashionable in our dictatorial society) whilst removing the foul odour of tobacco smoke from where it is most offensive.

As for the health issues, we should behave as adults and take responsibility for our actions. An ideal scenario is one where nobody is forced to inhale smoke - either first or second-hand, and one where those who wish to are permitted to do so without being forced onto the street.

 

That is how i see it aswell, there is no solid evidence to back up passive smoking claims.

 

The odds of getting cancer are increasing from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 if you live till 80. Therefore envriomental factors such as smoking are to blame rather than just genetics.

My dads parents are both well into their mid 80's now and were both chain smokers they are still alive. However 1000's of people have died as a result of passive smoking.

When people die of lung cancer its probably quite easy to work out that it was caused by pollution and smoke.

 

That is an assumption, can you show your evidence for that statement?

 

its as funny thing, you rush home, have your shower, do you hair etc, put on your freshly washed and ironed clothes go into town and come back stinking of an ash tray, streaming eyes and a blocked up nose and then do it all again the day after!

 

Dom, I disagree with your alcohol comment, if you drink to excess like you do then yes it is more dangerous, but it'll not give you cancer, if you take in moderation (not a word you know I know) then its no way as harmful and the effects are gone in 12 hours or so.

As to why I choose to go to the pub, well to be socialable, we've not taken the cafe culture like the continent have, so the only choices we have (in our part of Exeter) are 2 pubs and a social club, interestingly the club banned smoking at the bar, I guess this is to protect the staff. One of the pubs serves food but its split into 2 (its the old style lounge bar type thing) so, will the law mean just that part will have to be smoke free or all of the pub, suppose that will be an exception too.

So what other choice do I have, well we all used to meet up on Thursdays at the pub, but we've changed that to visiting each others houses, this is working well and since non of us smoke reduces the risk by 1 day ! As for the weekend the only choices I have are 1, stay in, 2, go to town and risk getting battered by some jumped up youth, or 3, go to pub / social club.

So who's going to enforce the ban anyway then, are we going to see coppers walking around bars checking if no one is smoking, and if they find someone, who'll get fined the bar or the smoker?

I came back from town today on the bus, some kids where on the bus smoking away, driver couldn't give a monkeys, so I'm left with sore throat and eyes, great typical.

Oh and there is plenty of evidence on the dangours of passive smoking just type that into google and take a read, plus the TV ads doing the rounds, surely they'd not be allowed to broadcast them if the information was untrue right?