Pubs what's happening to them.

[quisquose]

Facebook and other social sites imho.

 

I don't think the smoking ban has helped, but it is negligible compared to cultural change. In some areas nobody even drinks at all.

 

As a 'never had a ciggie in my mouth' non-smoker, I'm still passionately against the ban though, and think market forces could have provided plenty of choices for non-smokers rather than a ban.

 

If a pub is owned by smokers, run by smokers, and frequented by smokers, why the need for a ban? For example, plenty of choice could have been established for non-smokers by setting the minimum wage in smoking establishments at double that in non-smoking establishments.

[TJC1]

Facebook and other social sites imho.

 

I don't think the smoking ban has helped, but it is negligible compared to cultural change. In some areas nobody even drinks at all.

 

As a 'never had a ciggie in my mouth' non-smoker, I'm still passionately against the ban though, and think market forces could have provided plenty of choices for non-smokers rather than a ban.

 

If a pub is owned by smokers, run by smokers, and frequented by smokers, why the need for a ban? For example, plenty of choice could have been established for non-smokers by setting the minimum wage in smoking establishments at double that in non-smoking establishments.

 

If a pub provide a good outside seating area the smoking ban doesnt really come into play.

[taxman]

Go Tesco and get 24 cans for a tenner and rod in your own house/garden, or go pub and get 3 pints for a tenner.

 

Simple

 

I've never understood the argument that getting a crate load of beer from Tesco and drinking at home is any sort of substitute for going out to a pub and drinking and socialising with friends.

 

Maybe because I don't see getting smashed as cheaply as possible as the reason for going to the pub.

[Cyclone]

Facebook and other social sites imho.

 

I don't think the smoking ban has helped, but it is negligible compared to cultural change. In some areas nobody even drinks at all.

 

As a 'never had a ciggie in my mouth' non-smoker, I'm still passionately against the ban though, and think market forces could have provided plenty of choices for non-smokers rather than a ban.

 

If a pub is owned by smokers, run by smokers, and frequented by smokers, why the need for a ban? For example, plenty of choice could have been established for non-smokers by setting the minimum wage in smoking establishments at double that in non-smoking establishments.

 

Before the change in the law there was no incentive for any place to make itself smoke free as with no choice, non smokers had only two choices, go to a smoky pub, or don't go.

A better way to manage it might have been to make smoking an issue of license as well, but that doesn't deal with the health and safety aspects for the staff who are employed there.

[truman]

I've never understood the argument that getting a crate load of beer from Tesco and drinking at home is any sort of substitute for going out to a pub and drinking and socialising with friends.

 

Maybe because I don't see getting smashed as cheaply as possible as the reason for going to the pub.

 

you can have friends round to your house if you want..you don't have to drink alone..

[Cyclone]

I've never understood the argument that getting a crate load of beer from Tesco and drinking at home is any sort of substitute for going out to a pub and drinking and socialising with friends.

 

Maybe because I don't see getting smashed as cheaply as possible as the reason for going to the pub.

 

You invite your friends around to your house, put on music of your choice, drink beer of your choice, take your shoes off, snack, play games...

 

In many ways it's far superior to going to the pub (assuming you have enough room for your friends)

[Treatment]

'' Davenports, Beer at home, Birmingham ''.

 

That one will tease out the Grunties.

[quisquose]

Before the change in the law there was no incentive for any place to make itself smoke free as with no choice, non smokers had only two choices, go to a smoky pub, or don't go.

A better way to manage it might have been to make smoking an issue of license as well, but that doesn't deal with the health and safety aspects for the staff who are employed there.

 

Agreed. How many non-smoking pubs in Sheffield were there? I can only think of a couple. Compare that to the %age of the population that are smokers ... it was nonsense.

 

But we all understand the market forces at play. In our group of 10 drinkers there was only one smoker, whilst all of us would go in a smoking pub, the one smoker would refuse to go in the non-smoking pubs.

 

Market forces dictated that pubs should allow their customers to smoke, in a similar way to how market forces are now dictating that many restaurants only supply halal meat. If the minority refuses, then the minority dictate. My opinion was that market forces should have been used to re-balance the situation for improving health and choice for non-smokers, hence my suggestion of double the minimum wage for employees in smoking establishments.

 

In my plan, rather than the majority of pubs being smoking, the majority would be non-smoking in line with the general public. Rather than implement a ban and remove choice, this would increase choice.

 

If people really want to put their health at risk by working or drinking in a smoking pub then let them. But pay the employees more, and make the customers pay more as a result.

[Noob]

Maybe because I don't see getting smashed as cheaply as possible as the reason for going to the pub.

 

Neither do I. Just better to get the lads round and get a couple of `babs. Pubs are dead now, no atmos. So whats the point in going.

[melthebell]

smoking ban, too expensive, too many overheads, greedy pub cos, too many cheap booze deals elsewhere, too many leisure competitors, less a focal point of the community