Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 ... Maybe having certain pubs that are for smokers only are the answer? Would be intersting to see what happened. ... That was an option. - Right up until the government banned smoking in pubs. There was no law which required a landlord to allow people so smoke on his premises and should a landlord decide he wanted to run a non-smoking pub, he was quite entitled to do so. (I understand there were one or two successful non-smoking pubs.) My objection to a smoking ban has nothing to do with smoking. If a person decided to run a business, then the success or failure of that business will depend on a number of things including (but not limited to) the strength of the business plan and the willingness (and ability) of the proprietor to work. If you run a business, you take the profits, but you also take the risk. That's the way it usually works, but when the smoking ban was introduced, the government said (effectively) "Here's an additional problem. We are going to make life harder for you. We are going to increase your risk." IMO, there's something missing from that statement. If the government wants to alter how people may run businesses and if that alteration makes the business no longer viable, then the government should pay compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally_sheff Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Quote: Originally Posted by CorkerSWFC Why not ban smoking full stop then? Oh by the way im suprised you agreed with the sentiments of the thread as it says Smokling ban, im surprised no-ones pulled me up on that yet lol Must be all those ciggies to blame! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorkerSWFC Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 Quote: Originally Posted by CorkerSWFC Why not ban smoking full stop then? Oh by the way im suprised you agreed with the sentiments of the thread as it says Smokling ban, im surprised no-ones pulled me up on that yet lol Must be all those ciggies to blame! LOL! lol must be, or the bloody cold stood outside the boozer all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 That was an option. - Right up until the government banned smoking in pubs. There was no law which required a landlord to allow people so smoke on his premises and should a landlord decide he wanted to run a non-smoking pub, he was quite entitled to do so. (I understand there were one or two successful non-smoking pubs.) My objection to a smoking ban has nothing to do with smoking. If a person decided to run a business, then the success or failure of that business will depend on a number of things including (but not limited to) the strength of the business plan and the willingness (and ability) of the proprietor to work. If you run a business, you take the profits, but you also take the risk. That's the way it usually works, but when the smoking ban was introduced, the government said (effectively) "Here's an additional problem. We are going to make life harder for you. We are going to increase your risk." IMO, there's something missing from that statement. If the government wants to alter how people may run businesses and if that alteration makes the business no longer viable, then the government should pay compensation. Hypothetically then ,if a business had unsafe working practices then the gov should pay compensation if H+S laws have made the business tighten these up at a cost..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Like I said the ban was introduced to protect employees, that was made very clear when the legislation went through parliment. Interesting. Aren't the people who work behind in the Members' Bar in the Palace of Westminster (the one bar where smoking is still permitted) worth protecting? What is the evidence (not opinion) that anybody has suffered an injury or death which may be attributed irrefutably and solely to second-hand smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally_sheff Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 lol must be, or the bloody cold stood outside the boozer all the time LOL! never mind corker - if you get hypothermia, sue the government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorkerSWFC Posted October 28, 2010 Author Share Posted October 28, 2010 LOL! never mind corker - if you get hypothermia, sue the government! Telling ya lol :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally_sheff Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Interesting. Aren't the people who work behind in the Members' Bar in the Palace of Westminster (the one bar where smoking is still permitted) worth protecting? What is the evidence (not opinion) that anybody has suffered an injury or death which may be attributed irrefutably and solely to second-hand smoke? Because Roy Castle died of cancer through secondhand smoke! - however many more entertainers are still living well into their eighties despite being in similar environments. Not forgetting the fat lady with asthma who sued her employees - nothing at all to do with over-eating and under exercising of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beer Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 The pubco's killed the pubs with their exhorbitant rents and product pricing structures, not smok'l'ing! You have it spot on there. Why would anyone choose to rent a pub from a pubco for £1000/wk and then have to buy beer supplies from the pubco at £50 barrel over the odds when they can take a shop and covert it into a cafe bar for a fraction of the cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missymoo73 Posted October 28, 2010 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Ventilation....extractors......Staff? The ones that join us outside for a fag? Hang on a sec.....Ventilation and extrators wont get rid of it all. And as for the staff not all of the staff will smoke funily enough fps!! If you had read my earlier posts then you will see that I am for pubs that are just for smokers (and ther non smoking friend who wish to join them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.