taxman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 unless you can say for definite that all bar workers are smokers then your argument holds no smoke (more topical than holding water). And it's not the government saying who can and cannot be let in, it's government saying that since it's a public house and nominally open to anyone, it should be somewhere people can go without having to be assaulted by poisonous gases. No I didn't say all bar workers are smokers but its a bit of a daft argument saying the ban is to protect a worker from secondary smoke if they are smokers themselves. Like I say, if theres so many pub landlords rushing to provide smoke free pubs then any non smoking barstaff should have no trouble getting a job in one of these many places. So whats your problem with choice then, if you don't want to go to a smoking pub go to a non-smoking pub. If you don't like music you go to a music free pub If you don't want a pub full of lager drinking chavs then there is choice, you go somewhere else. Why can't there be choice in this case? And pubs are not really nominally open to the public. If a landlord says "your barred" then thats it. I really don't see why you would be so upset that certain people would rather go and drink in a pub open to smokers whilst you go drink somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 My problem with that is that the choice is currently wetherspoons or nowhere. Otherwise, sure, great. It would mean that smokers would only ever be friends with other smokers but, I guess that increases my chance of meeting intelligent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 My problem with that is that the choice is currently wetherspoons or nowhere. Otherwise, sure, great. It would mean that smokers would only ever be friends with other smokers but, I guess that increases my chance of meeting intelligent people. But surely if a smoking ban were so popular there would be loads of smoke free pubs out there? No? Maybe thats because the pubs would lose money because they'd lose custom. If there was such a popular feeling for the total ban why aren't pubs and breweries rushing to profit from non-smoking pubs? Incidentally - me- none-smoker, friends mixture of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathom Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Just had a thought on the car fumes - smoke comparison too. I've never walked in the house and had my parents say 'oh you stink of car fumes'. The negative impact on health might be similar (although I suspect smoke is worse) but smokers make other people smell who don't want to. I've been in a foul mood all day because I keep smelling lingering traces of smoke on my hair. I don't think the majority of smokers would care about it enough to openly flout the law on it. Half of them seem to be looking for some incentive to quit anyway, some do it just because their friends do or because it's percieved as cool in an immature chavvy mindset. A ban would work and should be implemented. The impact on health from car fumes is much worse. Stand by an urban road for five minutes and you have inhaled the equivalent toxins from around 300 cigarettes. The fumes from cars are heavy gases and linger at street level so you are much more likely to inhale them. I agree that in an enclosed space smoking is dangerous to those who have to be there - e.g. workers. And there is little they can do about it as they are often low skilled or need part time work, and there is little health & safety protection for such workers. Not many pubs are unionised! At least the public can vote with their feet to avoid smoky pubs. I've not really got any option if I want to avoid streaming eyes and a wheezing chest in the morning rush hour, thanks to the drivers who in probably about 90% of cases could catch a bus or car share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 No I didn't say all bar workers are smokers but its a bit of a daft argument saying the ban is to protect a worker from secondary smoke if they are smokers themselves. Like I say, if theres so many pub landlords rushing to provide smoke free pubs then any non smoking barstaff should have no trouble getting a job in one of these many places. So whats your problem with choice then, if you don't want to go to a smoking pub go to a non-smoking pub. If you don't like music you go to a music free pub If you don't want a pub full of lager drinking chavs then there is choice, you go somewhere else. Why can't there be choice in this case? And pubs are not really nominally open to the public. If a landlord says "your barred" then thats it. I really don't see why you would be so upset that certain people would rather go and drink in a pub open to smokers whilst you go drink somewhere else. I don't know whose posts you were reading, I said only a few posts back that a mix of smoking/non smoking would suit me fine. Then I proceded to wonder how you could make it work, issuing a smoking license would seem to be the simplest since alcohol and music licenses are already required. The problem with the market place is that despite non smokers now making up 60% of the population, and a good proportion of those people saying that they don't like smokey pubs, as long as nearly all good pubs are smoking pubs, the people who want to have a drink have no choice but to go to a smoking pub. Since most decent pubs operate at close to capacity anyway, they have nothing to gain (in terms of people through the door) by going non smoking. I already tend to go to bars that are less smokey, but it only takes one unpleasant person to sit at the table next to you and you come home stinking of smoke. It probably says something that I don't actually count as a friend anyone who smokes, but then I tend to hang out with people who are relatively fit and health conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I don't know whose posts you were reading, I said only a few posts back that a mix of smoking/non smoking would suit me fine. Well thats ok then, I thought you were in favour of a total ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 looks like my local will become a private club http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I wonder if the term "public place" extends to beer gardens, logically it should. Ah well "imagination smoking everybody" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detectorist Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Just heard the vote. Total Ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncleheed Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Well done to all MP's who voted this one in BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.