Smoking in pubs

[PuressenceUK]

That's if the NHS could afford the beds with the lost 1.2billion in tax revenue.

 

400 million to treat smokers, yet 1.2 billion in tax. You do the maths. I don't have a problem with not treating smokers as long as their national insurance premiums go down accordingly and the tax on fags is reduced.

 

As an ex-smoker myself dunno why I'm playing devils advocate here, it's just an interesting debate!

[Tony]

Originally posted by PuressenceUK

Give landlords the choice of how they want to run their pub, that's what 3 landlords told me they wanted when the same question was asked of them at the weekend.

 

Nanny state again (*bangs head against wall*)

 

And the day any 'get on my soapbox about this' anti-smoking whingers stop driving cars and giving kids asthma is the day I might consider not contributing to your lung cancer. Let's have non-smoking pubs for the non-smokers, smoking pubs for the smokers and people wo couldn't care less can go in both. There, everyone's happy.

 

Not hard is it?

 

That's cobblers, You can't interchange such things. It's not nanny state at all, it's about giving the majority what they want and encouraging the minority to improve their health.

 

Spurious points like

 

Originally posted by PuressenceUK

In all the pubs I frequent all the barstaff and landlords smoke so where's the issue?

 

and...

 

Originally posted by PuressenceUK

That's if the NHS could afford the beds with the lost 1.2billion in tax revenue.

 

... don't really hold water. But then I think you know that

[Yorkie]

Smoking is filth - done by idiots.

 

You know it.

 

Don't defend it - Get real, stop smoking and set a good example to the kids.

 

It should not be tolerated - one day it won't be.

[buck]

Like Janet Olsen in Australia, here in the USA our freedoms sre slowly but surely being taken away because politicians are always looking for a small crisis to hide the big ones like Iraq. After smoking what's next? Prohibition again? I was born in Sheffield when the narural colour of buildings was assumed to be black, there was so much smoke coming from the steel mill chimneys, now prople wimp out over the unproven statement that second hand smoke causes cancer. Gimme a break!

[Tony]

And thankfully, since the Clean Air Act which created smog free cities bronchial pneumonia is now a rarity... except in smokers.

 

Does that tell you something?

[sabb]

Isn’t it funny that all the traditional pubs had smoking and non smoking rooms but with the advent of big one room bars that has disappeared. Most of the traditional pubs down neepsend still have smoking and non smoking rooms.

I SAY BRING BACK PROPER PUBS

[Draggletail]

No, Buck, stay in connecticut, I dont want to breathe your stinking, accrid fag fumes into my lungs. Stay home and poisan yourself and your immediate family! Bring on the ban, the sooner the better! And that goes for you too 'owd lad' (from the PC brigade!)

:clap:

[Nu_Skillz]

why dont the goverment just go the full distance, and ban smoking alltogether?

instead of toying with this stupid idea of banning it in pubs.

 

ohh i get it now,,,they wont do that because they are making all that money in tax from tobacco. 'silly me'

 

so now what? something has to be done, medical experts are pushing this 'Passive Smoking' idea arroud and now the general public are at it too.

hmmm let me think!!!

ahhh, i got it!, what they should do is ban smoking in certian places, and this will get the medical department off their backs for a while and also at the same time,,,now this is the good bit...

if they do find anyone smoking where the ban is in force, they will hit them with a fine, say £30 for arguments sake.

geniuss.. not only income from sales, but from fines too

 

and heres me thinking the goverment actually do care about the publics health. i mean if they did, it would make perfect sence to ban smoking alltogether.

 

!

[Abdul]

Originally posted by buck

...now prople wimp out over the unproven statement that second hand smoke causes cancer. Gimme a break!

 

Come on buck, it's hardly unproven, is it?

 

http://www.roycastle.org/charity/

With around 90% of lung cancer directly related to tobacco smoke and the publication of over 40 studies showing a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, it is clear that prevention is of paramount importance.

 

You remember Roy Castle, don't you? He of Record Breakers fame? Killed by lung cancer, which he attributed to inhaling 'second hand smoke'.

 

Originally posted by buck

Like Janet Olsen in Australia, here in the USA our freedoms sre slowly but surely being taken away because politicians are always looking for a small crisis to hide the big ones like Iraq.

It's true that certain countries will pursue an active foreign policy when they're having domestic trouble and vice versa; but in this case, limiting the 'rights' and 'freedoms' of the minority is in the best interests of the majority, not just the electoral elite!

[slimsid2000]

There seem to be various myths and red herring put about by the pro-smoking lobby (eg FORREST etc).

 

They like to give the impression that smokers pay more in tax than non smokers do, yet if you look at taxes as a whole the average non-smoker pays more. This is because the higher up the income scale you go the less likely people are to smoke. So much for the argument that smokers are somehow buying a right to smoke where they like because of tax paid. In reality, the people who pay most tax are the ones whose rights are being ignored.

 

Secondly, it is highly spurious to say trade will be lost in pubs etc if smoking were banned/non-smokers protected (whichever way you like to view it). There has been no loss of trade at Meadowhall since they banned smoking. Also, if it is introduced in all pubs, hotels etc then trade cannot go from one place to another.