Smoking establishments - Debate, not abuse.

[Guest]

I'm all for it, even tho i DONT smoke i believe if somebody else does they have a right to, ASLONG as it doesnt infringe others rights not to.

so a place where smokers can sit in and smoke with only other smokers i dont see a problem.

as long as its governed right, clearly labelled as a smokers den of inequity lol and the owners are stringently kept in line over staff they use to work there, ie:- none smokers should not be forced to work there etc

 

Wouldn't put it as bluntly as that but yes, I gather your meaning and these establishments should, by law, have prominent warnings on the doors and also on the walls inside which clearly state the governments position on the risk of smoke harm.

[melthebell]

Wouldn't put it as bluntly as that but yes, I gather your meaning and these establishments should, by law, have prominent warnings on the doors and also on the walls inside which clearly state the governments position on the risk of smoke harm.

heh dont worry i was just taking the michael, but yeah thered need to be some clear form of identity to stop none smokers frequenting and then having a whinge

[xfox3x]

Glad to see a couple of sensible posts on this subject.

I think you are right about the popularity of smoking pubs (I have emboldened that part above) and I foresaw that eventuality, which is why I said that there would only be allowed a limited number in each area to prevent non-smokers having a lack of choice.

 

Aw sorry..I didn't notice that bit!

Mind you, when I compare the numbers of people in my locals who smoke and those who don't and add in the number of old people with mobility problems who have stopped coming in at all due to the ban, I think the owner of the local smoking pub would win hands down in terms of customers!

[Guest]

Aw sorry..I didn't notice that bit!

Mind you, when I compare the numbers of people in my locals who smoke and those who don't and add in the number of old people with mobility problems who have stopped coming in at all due to the ban, I think the owner of the local smoking pub would win hands down in terms of customers!

 

Good point about the old uns - exactly what I think too.

It should also be a good move from the view of non-smokers, old and young, and save them getting so annoyed with us.

[xfox3x]

Good point about the old uns - exactly what I think too.

It should also be a good move from the view of non-smokers, old and young, and save them getting so annoyed with us.

 

One of the lads used to take his dad every other Friday to the pub just over the road. He used to sit in his wheelchair listening to the karaoke singers and generally being 'spoiled' by everyone. He loved his night out until the ban which meant that he had to be wheeled right through the pub to the top of a flight of steps to have a ciggie.

He only came in once and felt he was inconveniencing too many people so he stayed at home until his death about 4 months later.

[harvey19]

I have a great sympathy for the older generation of smokers but none at all for younger people who have been made aware of the risks and have still started smoking.

To cater for smokers i would introduce smoking rooms fitted with efficient extractor fans in pubs. These rooms would be for the use of smokers and non smokers.

[crookesey]

I have a great sympathy for the older generation of smokers but none at all for younger people who have been made aware of the risks and have still started smoking.

To cater for smokers i would introduce smoking rooms fitted with efficient extractor fans in pubs. These rooms would be for the use of smokers and non smokers.

 

I just imagined someone being sucked up against a super extractor.

[Guest]

One of the lads used to take his dad every other Friday to the pub just over the road. He used to sit in his wheelchair listening to the karaoke singers and generally being 'spoiled' by everyone. He loved his night out until the ban which meant that he had to be wheeled right through the pub to the top of a flight of steps to have a ciggie.

He only came in once and felt he was inconveniencing too many people so he stayed at home until his death about 4 months later.

 

Such a shame - no one thinks of situations like that.

That's why I think, with a bit of common sense, everyone could be happy.

[Guest]

I just imagined someone being sucked up against a super extractor.

 

With my luck, that would be me - suppose someone would comment about the <REMOVED> hitting the fan.

[sandie]

In view of the heated discussions on this forum regarding smoking in / outside pubs, I wondered whether people care to genuinely debate this subject without resorting to abuse.

I believe that if the law were changed to allow smoking public house type establishments (possibly a limited number in each area which could easily be inspected),

it would be better for both smokers & non-smokers who would never need to to come into contact with each other.

 

The place which used to be my favourite pub had a landlord & landlady who both smoked.

They employed 2 barmaids who both smoked. The landlord owned the pub and was willing to make it a private club but was not allowed by the smoking laws.

He was therefore, stopped from smoking in his own establishment and has now left the trade.

 

 

Is there any good reason why a limited number of smoking establishments with good air extraction / air con systems, should not be allowed to open

so that the smokers would have somewhere to go, where they would not be causing a nuisance to non-smokers?

These establishments would be regularly inspected by H & S and would only employ smokers to run them / work in them.

 

This would end the situation where non-smokers in normal pubs, may want to sit outside in summer without the nuisance of cigarette smoke

and a complete smoking ban would operate within a hundred yards either direction of these pubs.

 

Smokers well know that there is some risk attached to smoking and any staff employed (who would also be smokers) would have to read & sign a document to the effect that:

they had been informed of the possible risks and that, as a smoker already, they worked there of their own accord and at their own risk.

 

Many people do many different things in life which carry risks - some of them, more so than smoking - for instance, people go mountaineering, motor racing, boxing etc.

Many people such as the obese, those on terrible diets and those who never exercise at all, take great risks with their health as do smokers.

 

This should set the ball rolling for a sensible debate - not an opportunity for both sides to spout vitriol at each other.

Would this idea work and be an improvement on the present situation and does anyone have further ideas to make it even better?

Are you against it and if so why? - the fact that you simply don't like it through predjudice/bias is not a good reason to be against it.

Lets have some well thought out opinions.

 

Your idea is a sensible opttion, but the chance of it taking off is next to nill.

There are 3 threads on smoking on here and each one has been hyjacked by the none smoking brigade.

 

I enjoy smoking and I am aware of the risks that is my choice, I do not smoke where there are children or where people are eating, but to have a pint and a game of darts with other people who also smoke served by bar staff that smoke in a room that is well ventilated I dont see a problem.

When I go into a pub for a meal I have to put up with Drunk and arrogent loud people, Screaming Kids, loud mobile phones and queue jumping pratts.

What happend to the open fire, a game of domms and you could sit and read your paper no Juke Box or slot machines. Old Albert in the corner with his dog and pipe who came out each day for a pint and a chat and was 80, now he can not do that so he stays at home on his own with little contact with others. There are many people like Albert, why do we deny thease people many who served for their country this one small pleasure for the sake of the anti smoking brigade and their so called comfort.