Smoking ban for public places - Opinions

[HotPhil]

If I hated beer I wouldn't go to the pub, but I like beer and dislike smoke, hence why I should be free to go there and not have the smoke forced into my lungs.

Such people could have stood outside and enjoyed a pint.

Pubs are public houses. The landlord invites in who they want. They should have continued to have the right to decide if their premises are smoke free or not.

[Cyclone]

Shisha cafes, tobacconists, cannabis smoking venues e.g. the cannon.

 

In which case I'd say that imposing a ban there was excessive.

I'd have never gone to such a place and complained about people smoking, that would be just stupid.

[Cyclone]

Such people could have stood outside and enjoyed a pint.

Pubs are public houses. The landlord invites in who they want. They should have continued to have the right to decide if their premises are smoke free or not.

 

In theory, but nearly every landlord in the country was taking the easy option and allowing smoking, this left non smokers with little to no choice so the government have intervened. Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter they could have done something voluntary ahead of the governments actions and then they would have been in control.

 

Either way, the point of a pub is for a drink, I was only responding to the bad analogy with garden centres as it made little sense.

[Cyclone]

Why can't the landlord/lady decide whether or not their pub should be smoking or non smoking? Or just have a seperated smoke room?

 

Because the law says not.

 

And smoke won't stay in the smoking room, nor away from the people working in the bar. But I wasn't arguing these points, I just disliked your analogy and wanted to say why it made no sense.

[Cyclone]

also according to you most people want smoke free pubs so this would be a great way for them to carry on making more money, and then the unsuccesful rival pubs could take in the smokers

 

It's not according to me. It's according to the figures we've all seen about how many adults smoke. Unless there are some who are pretending they don't it's about 40%.

[Green Web]

Because the law says not.

 

And smoke won't stay in the smoking room, nor away from the people working in the bar. But I wasn't arguing these points, I just disliked your analogy and wanted to say why it made no sense.

 

You disliked my analogy because i stated the reasons why this law simply isn't needed and doesn't make sense.

 

Your reply was that you know 60% of people don't smoke, so therefore thye don't want to be in smokey pubs, to which i replied well the majority of pubs then are going to be non smoking then if that's what most people want, so you'd have your own way anyhow, which means there's was no need for this ban to be imposed.

[Green Web]

In which case I'd say that imposing a ban there was excessive.

I'd have never gone to such a place and complained about people smoking, that would be just stupid.

 

But that's why you personally wanted a ban on smoking, because you personally don't like it, won't even consider a comprimise and couldn't care less about anybody elses enjoyment.

[Cyclone]

Don't jump to stupid conclusions, you have no idea whether I personally would have considered a compromise.

I certainly don't think though that your addiction should allow you to risk my health, that's true.

Your analogy was simply bad, you were comparing something intrinsically linked to the garden centre and curry house, with a random unpleasant habit in a pub.

 

Market forces hadn't worked because publicans could clearly see that if none of them went non-smoking, people would be forced to continue going to smoky pubs, this was the easy option as it meant doing nothing, which left the 60% of people who are non smokers with no choice, hence why I mentioned the percentage. So there was a need in the end, the only other option might have been licenses to allow some pubs to allow smoking, but this would be a red tape nightmare.

 

Interestingly, the % in this poll is quite significantly higher than simply the % that don't smoke welcoming the ban.

[Green Web]

Don't jump to stupid conclusions, you have no idea whether I personally would have considered a compromise.

I certainly don't think though that your addiction should allow you to risk my health, that's true.

Your analogy was simply bad, you were comparing something intrinsically linked to the garden centre and curry house, with a random unpleasant habit in a pub.

 

Market forces hadn't worked because publicans could clearly see that if none of them went non-smoking, people would be forced to continue going to smoky pubs, this was the easy option as it meant doing nothing, which left the 60% of people who are non smokers with no choice, hence why I mentioned the percentage. So there was a need in the end, the only other option might have been licenses to allow some pubs to allow smoking, but this would be a red tape nightmare.

 

Interestingly, the % in this poll is quite significantly higher than simply the % that don't smoke welcoming the ban.

 

You've a cheek to say i'm the one with no comprimise and stupid conclusions, firstly i don't even smoke and think everyone should do what i consider to be enjoyable, so that's the first of your conclusions you've got wrong, secondly i don't insinuate that all landlords/landladys aren't capable of running a pub that could cater for smokers and non smokers, and try to justify this law by stating this is why government had no choice to impose a ban on smoking everywhere. And lastly i don't think a local forum poll which has now been closed! is a true reflection of what most people think about the smoking ban.

[slimsid2000]

I didn't set out to stop going to pubs, but from 2 or 3 times a week before, I now only go to event nights. Just lost interest in going anymore.

 

Perhaps we should hold a minutes silence for you in sympathy.