Reports today suggest that the Government intends to outlaw smoking in all public places including pubs regardless of whether or not they serve food.

Should smoking be banned in all pubs or just the ones which serve food.

Are you sick of 'stinking like an ash tray' when you get home after a night out let alone thinking about how much passive smoke you've breathed in or do you think it's an all out assault on our civil liberties?

Is the cost of treating patients with smoking related diseases on the NHS too much too bear? Should the age at which you can buy cigarettes be raised from 16 to 18?

The tobacco companies are clearly worried about this - whaddya think?

yawn
this ones been done to death mate

I would've preferred to hear your real view of this... rather than this old sad refrain.

Hundreds of new users are joining ther forum every week -

what's a yawn to you may be the first time for them - think on !!

I am (at the moment) a smoker. But I agree it should be banned in enclosed spaces, it's not very fair on non-smokers. Also I might stop if I can't have one in the pub.

Originally posted by AndyK
I would've preferred to hear your real view of this... rather than this old sad refrain.

Hundreds of new users are joining ther forum every week -

what's a yawn to you may be the first time for them - think on !!

it was only a small yawn:)
if you search the threads on here ,quite easy so im told theres loads of threads on smoking in various shapes or forms

hey BoroughGal sounds like you wanna give up some time soon
do I read you right? Is the cost or what it's doing to your health or both?

It's ultimately my health, but also the cost, and how scrubberish it looks to see smokers smoking - it's hardly attractive is it?!:)

I've given up loads of times, for about a year every time, gone cold turkey, but it's the STAYING stopped that's my problem. I keep thinking "I could just have the odd one while I'm out" and that turns into full time smoking, eventually.

One day it will be for good.

Originally posted by panda79
it was only a small yawn:)
if you search the threads on here ,quite easy so im told theres loads of threads on smoking in various shapes or forms

true BUT
Its an interesting debate, and one which I would like to discuss for the FIRST time. Its just not the same 'looking' at a thread thats been done before that you have had no input in before.

But anyway....


I dont see why pubs should ban smoking. It should be up to the individual pub. If a person doesnt want to stink of an ashtray then dont go to that particular pub, go to one that has banned smoking, its not like you havent got a choice. I dont see why a Public House should be forced to ban smoking, its their property and their business, so let them make the decision.

i think they should give bars/restuarants/etc the option of banning it entirely or having a closed off area only for smoking that has its own ventilation system.

Worked for several years in clubs and pubs. secondary smoke brought on a form of asthma. So much now that I will not go into one room of my local if there are smokers in whether they put the fans on or not.

Smoking should b alowed in ALL pubs, but they should be areas designed within the pubs for non smiking and smoking.

Smoke is no 'respecter' of rooms mate- it'll get into your lungs regardless of signs which humans put up. How do we get around this? ..and should employees have to put up with it like DESY ?

they should have certain rooms with propper ventalation, just for somkers & non somkers.

I agree about the pointless no smoking areas. And so few pubs have rooms these days anyhow, due to the fashion for open plan characterless pubs.

Most pub owners seem to be smoking types, so I can see little incentive for them to ban smoking in their establishments voluntarily, so the only hope for the greater part of the population who are non smoking and don't like smoke, is for legislation to ban smoking in all pubs. That gets my vote.

Originally posted by underground1
they should have certain rooms with propper ventalation, just for somkers & non somkers.
from the nearest 10 pubs to my home, there is only one which has a room which could be smoke free, the rest have no internal doors and are too open plan for this to work. If we were having this conversation in the 1970s then the pubs would still have individual rooms and it could have been done.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I agree about the pointless no smoking areas. And so few pubs have rooms these days anyhow, due to the fashion for open plan characterless pubs.

Most pub owners seem to be smoking types, so I can see little incentive for them to ban smoking in their establishments voluntarily, so the only hope for the greater part of the population who are non smoking and don't like smoke, is for legislation to ban smoking in all pubs. That gets my vote.

Up here on Teesside the bar I work in is owned by a smoker, the general manager doesn't smoke, but all of the 4 deputy managers smoke. Yet from September we're banning smoking. It's what the customers want, bizaarely even those who smoke.

It's going to be interesting, because we'll be the first bar/pub in the town to ban it... but the thinking behind it is, because there's no direct competition for our market it won't affect us too badly, and the other pubs are watching our every mood!

Hook, that sounds fantastic, you'll be the busiest pub in the city before long.
I think there should be a tent at the far end of the carpark of all pubs which should be the only place where they can smoke. Nobody complains about not smoking on an aircraft any longer, once the smoking bores have got over needing to smoke while they drink in a year or so, they will have forgotten that is how they used to be at all.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Hook, that sounds fantastic, you'll be the busiest pub in the city before long.
I think there should be a tent at the far end of the carpark of all pubs which should be the only place where they can smoke. Nobody complains about not smoking on an aircraft any longer, once the smoking bores have got over needing to smoke while they drink in a year or so, they will have forgotten that is how they used to be at all.

I think the general feeling is, that if it's successful that most of the pubs will ban it indoors, but continue to allow smoking in their beer gardens. I can't really argue with that, it's not so bad outside, although ideally I'd love it banned everywhere.

In the report I read...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1509843,00.html

...it is Tony Blair who is pushing for this as the glorious epitaph for his years of dictatorship.

"The most recent poll, conducted by Populus in May this year, found that 72 per cent of Britons are against an outright ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and bars.' "

So as with the war on Iraq he will be flouting public opnion and imposing his will on the country.

For somone who keeps banging on about 'choice' in all things he seems to have lost the plot somewhat. :loopy:

I'm a smoker ...........My initial thoughs were lets have smoking and none smoking pubs..........but what about the none smokers who would have to work in the smoking ones ? .....hardly fair on them, and unrealistic to expect them to find other employment ..........My major concern is though, when you start banning things, where does it all end?

Just ban it ,end of.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
from the nearest 10 pubs to my home, there is only one which has a room which could be smoke free, the rest have no internal doors and are too open plan for this to work. If we were having this conversation in the 1970s then the pubs would still have individual rooms and it could have been done.

loads of pubs have two sides. :loopy:

Originally posted by underground1
loads of pubs have two sides. :loopy:

Guess the smoke will obey an invisible line then.

"The most recent poll, conducted by Populus in May this year, found that 72 per cent of Britons are against an outright ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and bars.'

It's worth mentioning that this poll was commissioned by FOREST the pro-smoking pressure group financed by the tobacco industry

why dont they make pubs more venterlated so smoke can be moved outside straight away.

Originally posted by underground1
why dont they make pubs more venterlated so smoke can be moved outside straight away.

Because it's not possible to create 100% smoke-free area in an open spaced room where one half is smoking and the other non-smoking. Believe me, we've had so many redesigns we decided the sensible to do was to just go non-smoking through.

I guess you're a smoker?

Originally posted by cloudybay
I'm a smoker ...........My initial thoughs were lets have smoking and none smoking pubs..........but what about the none smokers who would have to work in the smoking ones ? .....hardly fair on them, and unrealistic to expect them to find other employment ..........My major concern is though, when you start banning things, where does it all end?
It doesn't.

Before we go too far down this road yet again it should be noted that the government has denied the claim. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4107742.stm

It should be the choice of pub owners to allow or disallow smoking in the establishment, its a freedom issue and a free market issue.
There should however be some legal requirements included for air circulation and filtration equipment.

I think the Hillsborough Hotel has the right idea - the main 2 rooms of the pub, including the one with the bar in, is non-smoking. There is a third room, the conservatory, which is the smoking area.

Smoking is a bit like trumping but worse.
Trumping smells and is antisocial but smoking is a health hazard too.

When I go out I have a bath, wash my hair, put on nice clean clothes and come home feeling dirty and smelly :loopy:
btw I was a smoker for 16 yrs stopped now for 6 yrs.
I think banning smoking in pubs is a good thing.:clap:

Pubs & clubs will attract far more customers if smoking is banned, but the issue really is one of public health

Smoking kills - the facts
- Smoking just three to six cigarettes each day doubles your chance of having a heart attack.

- Smokers are more than twice as likely to have a fatal heart attack than non-smokers.

- One in five people in Britain die from smoking - that's more than 115,000 every year.

- About half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their habit.

- Those who smoke regularly and die of a smoking-related disease, lose on average 16 years from their life expectancy compared to non-smokers.

Smoking causes heart disease - the facts
- Smoking is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease. Others include high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol levels and physical inactivity.

- CHD is Britain's single biggest killer. Every two minutes someone in the UK has a heart attack.

- Non-smokers living with smokers have a 30% increased risk of developing CHD.

- Around five million children are regularly exposed to second hand smoke in the home.

- Smoking enhances the build up of fatty deposits - atheroma - in the walls of our arteries, restricting blood flow and increasing the risk of a heart attack.

- This build up of fatty deposits can trigger formation of blood clots, which can block blood flow causing a heart attack or stroke.

- Smoking reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen, depriving the heart of vital nutrients.


Giving up smoking - the facts
- Around one in four people in Britain smoke cigarettes.

- In California, where only one in six people smoke, there is a ban on smoking in public places, higher taxation and greater use of shock advertising tactics.

- Around 70% of smokers want to give up.

- If you've had a heart attack, continuing to smoke doubles your risk of having another heart attack within one year.

- Stopping smoking is the single most important thing a smoker can do to avoid a heart attack. It's always beneficial to stop.

Convinced yet?

I used to smoke and now only smoke when I drink.


I'd be happy for it to be banned in pubs. I'm more than happy to go outside for a fag. Used to it in houses and its nice to get some fresh air when you've been stuck in a pub all evening. Also makes it easier for people to give up.

You would need special smoking bins though outside every pub.

OK, talking as someone who lives somewhere where smoking is to be outlawed in pubs next year, here are my thoughts.

The Scottish Executive had a "consultation" exercise last year about banning smoking in pubs. The results (approximately) were that 48% were happy as the law stands. Of the 52% who wanted a change 60% wanted a total ban on smoking in pubs. So, about 31% wanted a total ban. The result: a total ban to be introduced as of next April. The reasoning was that the majority (52%) wanted a change in the current law and of those a majority wanted a total ban. Pretty good that 31% becomes a "majority" after a "consultation".

Personal experience: I live in Leith (not Edinburgh) and it is a traditional port town that is on the up. As a consequence there are lots of new pubs/wine bars/restaurants etc. This has resulted in a lot of the the more traditional pubs being bought over and re-opened as "trendy" bars. There is a pub across the street from me that re-opened as a non-smoking pub (the first in Leith). You would think that business would be booming. The fact is that it closes its doors at 10 o'clock every night because it is empty. Meanwhile the rest of the pubs in Leith (about 50 pubs within 5 minutes walk of my pad) are open until 1 am. Where is the demand for non-smoking pubs.

Personal thoughts: Non-smoking areas do not work as has been pointed out on here. Why not issue a certain percentage of pubs with smoking licences? That way you can choose where to drink and likewise, staff can choose where to work.

When/if the ban comes in to force up here I will no longer go to the pub and, believe me, I spend more in the pub than your average non-smoker.

Originally posted by Rob_Roy
OK, talking as someone who lives somewhere where smoking is to be outlawed in pubs next year, here are my thoughts.

The Scottish Executive had a "consultation" exercise last year about banning smoking in pubs. The results (approximately) were that 48% were happy as the law stands. Of the 52% who wanted a change 60% wanted a total ban on smoking in pubs. So, about 31% wanted a total ban. The result: a total ban to be introduced as of next April. The reasoning was that the majority (52%) wanted a change in the current law and of those a majority wanted a total ban. Pretty good that 31% becomes a "majority" after a "consultation".

Personal experience: I live in Leith (not Edinburgh) and it is a traditional port town that is on the up. As a consequence there are lots of new pubs/wine bars/restaurants etc. This has resulted in a lot of the the more traditional pubs being bought over and re-opened as "trendy" bars. There is a pub across the street from me that re-opened as a non-smoking pub (the first in Leith). You would think that business would be booming. The fact is that it closes its doors at 10 o'clock every night because it is empty. Meanwhile the rest of the pubs in Leith (about 50 pubs within 5 minutes walk of my pad) are open until 1 am. Where is the demand for non-smoking pubs.

Personal thoughts: Non-smoking areas do not work as has been pointed out on here. Why not issue a certain percentage of pubs with smoking licences? That way you can choose where to drink and likewise, staff can choose where to work.

When/if the ban comes in to force up here I will no longer go to the pub and, believe me, I spend more in the pub than your average non-smoker.

Yet I'm pretty sure that when H Bar goes none smoking from September I'll be able to report a totally different story to yours. Although granted we're in England.

We take around £50k a week through the tills, and we're expecting that to go UP once we become non-smoking.

As a smoker you appear arrogant. You 'claim' to spend more than a non-smoker, yet our biggest customer who has a tab with us spends around £2000 a month in our bar alone, he also frequents the pub next door, and a few of the other restaurants. He doesn't smoke, do you spend more than him?

What is an average smoker? More people in our bar who don't smoke, spend more. Our regulars spend more, and they're frequently none-smokers.

But screw the money aspect of it. I work in a bar because I love the job, I absolutely adore the place I work. I have the utmost respect for the management, the owner and my fellow colleagues, it's a professionally run bar (on a side note, it's what Crystal should have been) and yet I'm an asthmatic.

I'm subject to feeling ill coming home a night at work because of the smokers. I'm subject to standing behind a bar while people are blowing smoke in my faces to attract attention, and if I have to walk through the crowd I nearly always end up getting burnt when changing ashtrays. Ever put your hand over the top of a hot ashtray in the dark of a bar and burnt your palm? It happens on a frequent basis.

Maybe it's the price you'll say I should pay, so what about the other customers. Smoking kills, it's a scientific fact. It's not debatable, smoking is harmful. So what about the other customers who have to be subject to your smoke. Breathing it in, intoxicating their lungs with smoke.

I suppose you're so arrogant you probably don't care.

i think it should be banned where food is served. i hate eaten when smoke is blown over your lovely cooked meal. but all in all, if they ban it completely, it was cause a huge up roar. banning where food is, is ideal, because most pubs serve food anyway, so it would only be clubs that smoking is allowed.

Originally posted by Hook
Yet I'm pretty sure that when H Bar goes none smoking from September I'll be able to report a totally different story to yours. Although granted we're in England.

We take around £50k a week through the tills, and we're expecting that to go UP once we become non-smoking.

As a smoker you appear arrogant. You 'claim' to spend more than a non-smoker, yet our biggest customer who has a tab with us spends around £2000 a month in our bar alone, he also frequents the pub next door, and a few of the other restaurants. He doesn't smoke, do you spend more than him?

What is an average smoker? More people in our bar who don't smoke, spend more. Our regulars spend more, and they're frequently none-smokers.

But screw the money aspect of it. I work in a bar because I love the job, I absolutely adore the place I work. I have the utmost respect for the management, the owner and my fellow colleagues, it's a professionally run bar (on a side note, it's what Crystal should have been) and yet I'm an asthmatic.

I'm subject to feeling ill coming home a night at work because of the smokers. I'm subject to standing behind a bar while people are blowing smoke in my faces to attract attention, and if I have to walk through the crowd I nearly always end up getting burnt when changing ashtrays. Ever put your hand over the top of a hot ashtray in the dark of a bar and burnt your palm? It happens on a frequent basis.

Maybe it's the price you'll say I should pay, so what about the other customers. Smoking kills, it's a scientific fact. It's not debatable, smoking is harmful. So what about the other customers who have to be subject to your smoke. Breathing it in, intoxicating their lungs with smoke.

I suppose you're so arrogant you probably don't care.


Hook

You make some decent points but let yourself down by becoming personal.

Ignoring that, perhaps you should re-read my last point. Make some bars smoking and others non-smoking. Approximately 25% of the population smoke so why not issue smoking licences to 25% of pubs. That way non-smokers don't have to breathe my smoke and I have a choice of going to a pub that allows me to smoke.

When I say I spend more than the average non-smoker in pubs, that is based on the people I know. Those who smoke almost always enjoy a good drink. Your customer who spends £2,000 a month on booze doesn't need to smoke. He is well on his way to an early grave.

Originally posted by Rob_Roy
Hook

You make some decent points but let yourself down by becoming personal.

Ignoring that, perhaps you should re-read my last point. Make some bars smoking and others non-smoking. Approximately 25% of the population smoke so why not issue smoking licences to 25% of pubs. That way non-smokers don't have to breathe my smoke and I have a choice of going to a pub that allows me to smoke.

When I say I spend more than the average non-smoker in pubs, that is based on the people I know. Those who smoke almost always enjoy a good drink. Your customer who spends £2,000 a month on booze doesn't need to smoke. He is well on his way to an early grave.

I wasn't referring to you totally as arrogant. Most smokers just come across as arrogant, with a 'we want to smoke, why shouldn't we'.

The problem with issueing smoking licenses to pubs, is that then some pubs become inaccessible to non-smokers. A smoker can visit a non-smoking pub as long as he doesn't smoke, a non-smoker can't visit a smoking pub as long as he doesn't breathe. And is that pub going to only employ staff who smoke?

I agree that a total ban isn't the way to go, but I don't see why non-smokers should be discriminated against. Bars & Pubs that have more than one room should be allowed to have a smoking room and a non-smoking room. I don't have any problem with that, it solves many problems, smokers and non-smokers can drink in the same place, smoking staff can work the smoking room, non smoking staff the non-smoking room, and people can mingle if they wish to do so.

It's not a problem with an easy solution, but it's a problem that *does* need a solution.

Don't know much about Scotland but this is pretty clear to me:

"Almost three-quarters of people (73%) who responded to a BBC survey want a ban on smoking in all public places as a way to cut tobacco-related illness.

More than 9,000 people were polled for their views on public health issues.

This poll shows that the public is demanding action to end smoking in the workplace and enclosed public places.

This is the single most effective thing the government could do to cut smoking rates and protect smokers and non-smokers alike. "

Is it time for the government to recognise the overwhelming public demand for action.?

Originally posted by Hook
I wasn't referring to you totally as arrogant. Most smokers just come across as arrogant, with a 'we want to smoke, why shouldn't we'.

The problem with issueing smoking licenses to pubs, is that then some pubs become inaccessible to non-smokers. A smoker can visit a non-smoking pub as long as he doesn't smoke, a non-smoker can't visit a smoking pub as long as he doesn't breathe. And is that pub going to only employ staff who smoke?

I agree that a total ban isn't the way to go, but I don't see why non-smokers should be discriminated against. Bars & Pubs that have more than one room should be allowed to have a smoking room and a non-smoking room. I don't have any problem with that, it solves many problems, smokers and non-smokers can drink in the same place, smoking staff can work the smoking room, non smoking staff the non-smoking room, and people can mingle if they wish to do so.

It's not a problem with an easy solution, but it's a problem that *does* need a solution.

Hook

I think we agree that a total smoking ban is a bit extreme but many non smokers have stated that non-smoking areas don't work, so what is the point in having them? I have no problem with some pubs having a total ban. I won't use them. That is my choice. Likewise, non-smokers do not have to use smoking pubs. It then becomes personal choice.

Originally posted by AndyK
Don't know much about Scotland but this is pretty clear to me:

"Almost three-quarters of people (73%) who responded to a BBC survey want a ban on smoking in all public places as a way to cut tobacco-related illness.

More than 9,000 people were polled for their views on public health issues.

This poll shows that the public is demanding action to end smoking in the workplace and enclosed public places.

This is the single most effective thing the government could do to cut smoking rates and protect smokers and non-smokers alike. "

Is it time for the government to recognise the overwhelming public demand for action.?

Having a smoking ban will have no effect on me (or any other smokers I know). I will carry on doing it despite the evidence saying I shouldn't.

What hacks me off is that everyone thinks they can have a go at smokers. What about the fat ********? Yes that's right.....the fat ********? You know, those people who stink to high heaven as soon as the thermometer goes above 15 degrees. Those people who have greatly increased the rate of asthma, diabetes, heart disease and all forms of cancer over the last 20 years.

You can say anything you like about smokers but god forbid you pick on porkers. At least smokers contribute via the taxes they pay whilst fat ******** cost the NHS more than smokers whilst contributing nothing.

Originally posted by Rob_Roy
Hook

I think we agree that a total smoking ban is a bit extreme but many non smokers have stated that non-smoking areas don't work, so what is the point in having them? I have no problem with some pubs having a total ban. I won't use them. That is my choice. Likewise, non-smokers do not have to use smoking pubs. It then becomes personal choice.

Non smoking areas don't work, non smoking rooms would.

It's impossible to stop smoke drifting between two different areas of a bar. Put a door and a wall in the middle, and it's a totally different story.

Originally posted by Hook
Non smoking areas don't work, non smoking rooms would.

It's impossible to stop smoke drifting between two different areas of a bar. Put a door and a wall in the middle, and it's a totally different story.


Agreed. In effect have 2 different areas. I just want to be able to have a smoke when I have a pint. I know it's going to kill me in the end and I know it's harmful to other people. I don't care about the damage it does to me...it's my choice. I don't really want to harm other people but at the the same time why should I be denied one of my pleasures in life. But as you have pointes out there is no need for a total ban.

In fact this issue should have nothing to do with the liberties of customers in pubs, and everything to do with the right of the people who work in pubs not to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

On the basis of their health and safety at work there can surely be no argument against a ban ??

Smoking is banned at every wokplace I can think of.

The one thing that is bad with the partial banning of smoking in buildings is that a lot of smokers go outside which in many instances causes as much nuisance to non smokers than smoking indoors.

Go to any hospital and you will find the entrances partially blocked by smokers who congregate their to smoke.

Everytime you enter or leave you have to hold your breath not to inhale the smoke.

Believe me this is no joke to asthma or people with breathing problems.

Another annoyance is smokers retreating to outside tables outside pubs, cafe's and restaurants.

On fine days many people sit outside to enjoy the fresh air and the sunshine but as soon as the smoking brigade light up then it is a waste of time.

In my experience the worst offenders seem to be women who hold their cigarette out at arms length so they do not get the smoke but in doing so pollute many non smokers breathing.

The laws in the United States include no smoking within a certain distance of the building.

By all means allow people to smoke but let it be known so that non smokers do not have their rights or health compromised.

Happy Days!

I agree PopT but Fat ******** Roby Roy?

This has now descended into farce.

Sarcastic 'wit' subsituted for rational debate is the last resort of those with no tools left in their arguement box.

I suppose we should all retort that those selfish b*******s who choose to smoke and who fall ill with all manner of smoking related diseases should be surcharged at the door of the hospitals or denied access until they can flash their plastic to pay for their treatment.

This too is ridiculous.

Lets get back to the real discussion here.

Poll's going well isn't it?

Originally posted by AndyK
I agree PopT but Fat ******** Roby Roy?

This has now descended into farce.

Sarcastic 'wit' subsituted for rational debate is the last resort of those with no tools left in their arguement box.

I suppose we should all retort that those selfish b*******s who choose to smoke and who fall ill with all manner of smoking related diseases should be surcharged at the door of the hospitals or denied access until they can flash their plastic to pay for their treatment.

This too is ridiculous.

Lets get back to the real discussion here.

Poll's going well isn't it?

just a idea for those who dont like smoky bars , dont go in them they are plenty of bars/pubs what have smoke free areas or do the health fascists like spoiling everyones fun

i tell you somthing once they ban smoking in pubs they will want to ban somthing else , what are the odds that beer will be there next target

Originally posted by panda79
just a idea for those who dont like smoky bars , dont go in them they are plenty of bars/pubs what have smoke free areas or do the health fascists like spoiling everyones fun

i tell you somthing once they ban smoking in pubs they will want to ban somthing else , what are the odds that beer will be there next target

There's no bar you can go in that hasn't banned smoking that doesn't have at least some people smoking. I don't want to be confined to bars that choose to ban smoking, I'd like to be able to go into every bar.

Above is an example of an arrogant smoker.

Originally posted by Hook
There's no bar you can go in that hasn't banned smoking that doesn't have at least some people smoking. I don't want to be confined to bars that choose to ban smoking, I'd like to be able to go into every bar.

Above is an example of an arrogant smoker.

no its not been arrogant if you want to see arrogance i suggest you look at some of the anti smoking posts on this thread

Originally posted by panda79
no its not been arrogant if you want to see arrogance i suggest you look at some of the anti smoking posts on this thread

So tell me, ignore the fact that what you're doing is killing other people around you, ignoring the fact that you have a choice to not smoke in a public place, but other people in the public place don't have a choice to not breathe in your smoke, and ignoring the fact that smoking is becoming less and less socially acceptable, what possible reasons could you have for not bringing in some sort of smoking ban?

Originally posted by Hook
So tell me, ignore the fact that what you're doing is killing other people around you, ignoring the fact that you have a choice to not smoke in a public place, but other people in the public place don't have a choice to not breathe in your smoke, and ignoring the fact that smoking is becoming less and less socially acceptable, what possible reasons could you have for not bringing in some sort of smoking ban?

i actally voted for a smoking ban for bars / pubs what served food which to any reasonable person is a good idea

if persons dont want to breathe in my smoke dont sit near me move away go to another bar its not as if im holding a gun to your head saying breathe this

Originally posted by panda79
i actally voted for a smoking ban for bars / pubs what served food which to any reasonable person is a good idea

if persons dont want to breathe in my smoke dont sit near me move away go to another bar its not as if im holding a gun to your head saying breathe this

But the problem is, in many bars it's not that easy. If all the smokers were together that'd be easy, but since they like to spread themselves out a bit, you can't just 'avoid' smokers.

Outside it's no problem, in a building with poor ventilation and lots of people, it's horrible.

And you are holding a gun to somebodies head simply by smoking. If you walk into a bar and sit next to a table where nobody is smoking, do you ask the people around you if they mind if you like up? Or do you just light up?

Should it be that they have to get up and move to avoid your smoke, and if they asked you to put it out, what would your reaction be?

Originally posted by Hook
But the problem is, in many bars it's not that easy. If all the smokers were together that'd be easy, but since they like to spread themselves out a bit, you can't just 'avoid' smokers.

Outside it's no problem, in a building with poor ventilation and lots of people, it's horrible.

like i said before if you dont like a bar go find one what is less or zero smoke friendly

i really hope that the goverment doesnt bring in a total smoke ban i mean if you think about it the goverment stands to lose a lot of money in taxes in the long run if they do

surely a compromise can be made

Originally posted by panda79
like i said before if you dont like a bar go find one what is less or zero smoke friendly

i really hope that the goverment doesnt bring in a total smoke ban i mean if you think about it the goverment stands to lose a lot of money in taxes in the long run if they do

surely a compromise can be made

I'm all for a compromise. I don't want to ban smoking everywhere, and in all public places. I'd certainly love to ban smoking AT the bar, in EVERY bar, in toilets, in restaurants etc etc.

If there's a compromise, smoking should only be allowed in rooms with four walls and a door, and there should be a seperate room for non-smokers. Ideally every bar would be open to smokers and non-smokers, but that isn't really practical.

I just can't smokers who tell non-smokers to go elsewhere. That isn't always an option, and smokers just can't understand how nasty and horrible and acrid smoking is for those of us who don't smoke.

I dont smoke, but i did so i can see it from both points, we are not made to go into any pub we dont want to are we, so we have the right to choose which pub we go into, if you smoke you choose to go into a pub where you can smoke, if you dont smoke you choose weather or not you want to put up with the smokers or not! we all know the risks.

Originally posted by madowl
I dont smoke, but i did so i can see it from both points, we are not made to go into any pub we dont want to are we, so we have the right to choose which pub we go into, if you smoke you choose to go into a pub where you can smoke, if you dont smoke you choose weather or not you want to put up with the smokers or not! we all know the risks.

But right now any smoker can go into practically any pub and smoke, non-smokers have a very limited range of non-smoking establishments. What establishments can you name in Sheffield where it's non-smoking?

Out of 12 pubs in the town I live in, (there's one pub for every 1000 residents :heyhey: ) none are non-smoking. So what do all the non-smokers do?

Of course that'll all change from September!

I used to smoke and only gave up in March this year...I have voted for a complete ban as I think it will reduce the amount of ciggies smoked by smokers and generally encourage more smokers to kick the habit completely!

Years ago when I could smoke in the workplace I smoked 20 a day because I could...when I could no longer smoke at work that reduced to half literally overnight!

The only downside is outside workplaces there is a constant line of people at the main gates etc smoking outside...fag ends litter the pavement etc

Will we see this 'line up' outside pubs next???

Beer Gardens will no longer be enjoyed by all but will just become a haven for the smoking community etc...

Sorry if this has been said already but didn't read all the previous posts..!!

:P

Originally posted by Shiesh
I used to smoke and only gave up in March this year...I have voted for a complete ban as I think it will reduce the amount of ciggies smoked by smokers and generally encourage more smokers to kick the habit completely!

Years ago when I could smoke in the workplace I smoked 20 a day because I could...when I could no longer smoke at work that reduced to half literally overnight!

The only downside is outside workplaces there is a constant line of people at the main gates etc smoking outside...fag ends litter the pavement etc

Will we see this 'line up' outside pubs next???

Beer Gardens will no longer be enjoyed by all but will just become a haven for the smoking community etc...

Sorry if this has been said already but didn't read all the previous posts..!!

:P

I think Public Places includes outside of offices, pubs, supermarkets, and beer gardens. I'd hope so anyway! :clap:

'Should Smoking be Banned in ALL pubs?'
I haven't read any of the posts - I don't need to. As a daily pub user (non smoker) I just vote:
YES

Well......I am going to stick my neck out here. I am a smoker.......but I consider myself to be a considerate smoker. I even go outside of my own house to smoke if we have non-smoking visitors.
I am an addict.......I freely admit that and just lately I feel like a leper! I feel that drug abusers get a better deal than smokers do. I am also well aware that the huge amount of taxes that I pay every time I buy a packet of cigs more than compensates for any health facilities I might use. (I haven't needed to visit a doctor for well over 10 years now and I am well and truly on my way to collecting my pension!). As for work........we have our own arrangements. We have a seperate smoke room where smokers can work while they have a fag.......and it works well. Why the hell should the Government have a right to ban these arrangements??
As for restaurants etc......I totally agree with that, and pubs should also be able to cater for both smokers and non-smokers. I don't feel as if the smokers are pushing the non-smokers out.......in fact if anything it is the other way around.
The worse thing of all is that WE.....as voters are being manipulated by our rulers!! THEY are setting man against man......first the fox hunting.....then smoking and they are even trying to dictate what we should/should not eat! Not to mention what weight we should be.
Where will it all end? Will they be fining us next for being late in bed?
But back to the smoking issue...............every tom dick and harry is breathing in much more noxious fumes every single time they leave their homes..........vehicle emissions! Should all combustion engines be banned from our roads?
Ok.......I am being a bit flippant now, but I do feel as if the nanny state headed by president Blair is a huge smokescreen in order to kid people that they are really listening!
AND.......for all the non-smokers.........if everybody in the UK stopped smoking overnight (and most of wish we could)........then you would all suffer because of a huge hike in your taxes to replace the loss of the massive amount of tax that the smokers give the government. We smokers wouldn't notice it much because we would allready be quids in by saving masses of money by giving up!
Right........where did I put my tin helmet?

When I heard that the Irish government had banned smoking in all pubs, I thought all hell would break loose. However on my annual visit in September last year I was surprised to find how easily it had been accepted. Smoking isn't easy with the incessant Irish rain, but some pubs had erected heated shelters outside for the addicted. Now the government wants to ban those too. Prohibition next?

Originally posted by Shiesh
I used to smoke and only gave up in March this year...I have voted for a complete ban as I think it will reduce the amount of ciggies smoked by smokers and generally encourage more smokers to kick the habit completely!

Sorry if this has been said already but didn't read all the previous posts..!!

:P

Again, i've not read the full post, but i agree with Shiesh. There's not many hard smokers that i know who smoke 20 or more a day, but many are social smokers who have the fag as part of the group.

banning smoking in pubs will streamline the smokers further. However i will say that as a non smoker, i do have real sympathy for smokers. My choice onthe poll was to ban smoking in all pubs that serve food.

Panda, You've missed the point a wee bit

Myself and many of the people who've posted on this site are not anti-smoking.

You can go ahead and smoke yourself to death as far as I'm concerned but don't do it where it harms other people.

I would stand up for your right to smoke, but not where it's killing me or anyone else.

The current debate is about Pubs & Public places, surely you agree with this don't you?

Originally posted by buck
When I heard that the Irish government had banned smoking in all pubs, I thought all hell would break loose. However on my annual visit in September last year I was surprised to find how easily it had been accepted. Smoking isn't easy with the incessant Irish rain, but some pubs had erected heated shelters outside for the addicted. Now the government wants to ban those too. Prohibition next?

Next they will be trying to ban flatulence!

Originally posted by buck
When I heard that the Irish government had banned smoking in all pubs, I thought all hell would break loose.
Yes the irish ban has been a roaring success. I know someone who is from a border town and the pubs on the side of the border with the ban did so well out of it, that most of the ones on the British side of the border have banned it too.

I think that people should be allowed to commit suicide if they want to. True, smoking is a slow and grisly way to do it but hey, if they get a bit of pleasure out of it along the way ... and it is more effective than some other methods of (attempted) suicide.

But yeah I'm with all those who say it shouldn't be inflicted on the 75% of us who don't smoke. Fair play, we can stay away from pubs if we don't like it - which is just what I do. Have a few mates round for wine or whisky instead. Pity really as I like beer, and the bottled stuff just isn't the same, but I can live with that.

Probably not the most appropriate person to post a comment, being an ex smoker, but should the next "no smoking" zone not be whilst driving.

If it's possible to get taken to court for eating a Mars Bar or an apple (both have been done) then surely it must be deemed "dangerous" to light up and smoke.

In answer to the question, should smoking be banned in ALL pubs, my response is a definite yes.
If people want to smoke, fine but don't inflict it on others.

Originally posted by PhilipB
Probably not the most appropriate person to post a comment, being an ex smoker, but should the next "no smoking" zone not be whilst driving.

If it's possible to get taken to court for eating a Mars Bar or an apple (both have been done) then surely it must be deemed "dangerous" to light up and smoke.

In answer to the question, should smoking be banned in ALL pubs, my response is a definite yes.
If people want to smoke, fine but don't inflict it on others.

I agree 100% Philip, how the powers that be can decree that eating whilst driving is dangerous, yet still allow smokers to puff away is beyond me.

Originally posted by owdlad
I agree 100% Philip, how the powers that be can decree that eating whilst driving is dangerous, yet still allow smokers to puff away is beyond me.

there is no specific law against eating whilst driving, the prosecutions have been under the due care and attention heading. So presumably should a police officer so wish and the CPS agree the same could be applied to someone smoking.

Originally posted by rothschild
Why the hell should the Government have a right to ban these arrangements??
As for restaurants etc......I totally agree with that, and pubs should also be able to cater for both smokers and non-smokers. I don't feel as if the smokers are pushing the non-smokers out.......in fact if anything it is the other way around.
The worse thing of all is that WE.....as voters are being manipulated by our rulers!! THEY are setting man against man......first the fox hunting.....then smoking and they are even trying to dictate what we should/should not eat! Not to mention what weight we should be.
Where will it all end? Will they be fining us next for being late in bed?
But back to the smoking issue...............every tom dick and harry is breathing in much more noxious fumes every single time they leave their homes..........vehicle emissions! Should all combustion engines be banned from our roads?
Ok.......I am being a bit flippant now, but I do feel as if the nanny state headed by president Blair is a huge smokescreen in order to kid people that they are really listening!
AND.......for all the non-smokers.........if everybody in the UK stopped smoking overnight (and most of wish we could)........then you would all suffer because of a huge hike in your taxes to replace the loss of the massive amount of tax that the smokers give the government. We smokers wouldn't notice it much because we would allready be quids in by saving masses of money by giving up!
Right........where did I put my tin helmet?


Lots of good points there rothschild, but they'll be largely ignored by the anti-smoking gang. I usually get my oar in about the effects of traffic pollution in these anti-smoking threads, but people don't want to know.

If Tony Blair were to suggest hitting people's addiction to their cars, the country would be screaming in panic and horror. Few people appreciate the affect on their health of the minging air quality in our city centres and urban traffic corridors, because the govt. keep quiet about the few reports that have been published and aren't inclined to commission their own investigation, for obvious reasons.

I certainly support the ban on smoking in public places, essentially from the POV of the people who work there. But TB isn't pushing this issue for the sake of people's health, - it's much more an issue of him leaving his mark on society now that he realises the world and his dog are sick to the back teeth of him and his control-freak mentality.

Gordon Brown will already be sweating on how much this ban will affect his PBR figures :D

Originally posted by eguin
Next they will be trying to ban flatulence!

In fact the flatulence of large herbivores is a significant contributor to global warming. Methane is several times more effective by volume than CO2, and consider how many domestic cattle, oxen and buffalo there are around the world ;)

I don't see why it's a difficult decision. 75% of the population don't smoke - the last time I did maths that was a healthy majority, and that's how democracy works - you can't please all of the people, so you please the majority. Even one smoker in a room spoils it for all the non-smokers there. I'm sure smokers were up in arms when smoking was banned in offices and on buses - but they'll get used to it.

To any smoker who claims this is infringing their rights, look at it this way:

What's worse, non-smokers having to breathe second hand smoke through no choice of their own and potentially having to face serious health problems as a result, or smokers having to nip outside if they want a cigerette, and at worst getting wet/cold?

75% of the population don't smoke or want to be in smoke, of the remaining 25%, the smokers, most of them [over 15 years of age] would like to stop at somepoint, and have probably tried to stop or are trying to stop anyway.

So a ban would be doing them a big favour and a great reason and opportunity to succeed.

It is also obvious to me that the majority of non smokers, don't bother to comment about smoking, most of the noise is made by a small and noisy minorty of the smokers. If you were to question the whole population, I bet that you'd get more like 90% in favour of a total ban in pubs.

Originally posted by Greybeard
Lots of good points there rothschild, but they'll be largely ignored by the anti-smoking gang. I usually get my oar in about the effects of traffic pollution in these anti-smoking threads, but people don't want to know.

If Tony Blair were to suggest hitting people's addiction to their cars, the country would be screaming in panic and horror. Few people appreciate the affect on their health of the minging air quality in our city centres and urban traffic corridors, because the govt. keep quiet about the few reports that have been published and aren't inclined to commission their own investigation, for obvious reasons.

I suspect that most people are more or less aware of the effects of traffic pollution, but are at present prepared to put up with it for the sake of the benefits of transport. Whereas the non-smoking majority are beginning to be unprepared to put up with smoke, for which the only benefit is a pleasure (or craving-satisfaction) that they don't share.

drugs are bad... m'kay, if ya do drugs ya bad m'kay

I don't know why they haven't gone for the smoking or non-smoking pubs alternative. If some pubs were smoking and some wern't then people could go to whichever they choose.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't know why they haven't gone for the smoking or non-smoking pubs alternative. If some pubs were smoking and some wern't then people could go to whichever they choose.

how would you regulate it to ensure that numbers were roughly even?

Originally posted by Cyclone
how would you regulate it to ensure that numbers were roughly even?

you wouldn't, the market would decide, the same way it decides if a chinese restaurant will succeed instead of an indian restaurant.
If pub ownsers were given the choice to go non-smoking or stay smoking most of them (from what people are saying) would go non-smoking, if they were popular and made money they would stay open If 75% of the population don't smoke and 90%+ want a ban then there should be no problem for a non-smoking pub finding customers, even if there was a smoking pub across the road.

Originally posted by nick2
you wouldn't, the market would decide, the same way it decides if a chinese restaurant will succeed instead of an indian restaurant.
If pub ownsers were given the choice to go non-smoking or stay smoking most of them (from what people are saying) would go non-smoking, if they were popular and made money they would stay open If 75% of the population don't smoke and 90%+ want a ban then there should be no problem for a non-smoking pub finding customers, even if there was a smoking pub across the road.

pub owners already have the choice, there's nothing that forces them to allow smoking.

so the free market seems to have failed in this instance.

I guess the reason being a type of lock-in (like VHS winning over betamax). If all pubs are smoking pubs (as at present) then there is no incentive to be the first to break the mold. At the moment the people who don't like smoking still go out anyway, so everywhere has the benefit of keeping smokers and non smokers alike.
Be the first to ban smoking, and whilst you'll gain some non smoking clientelle, will it be enough to balance the loss of smoking clientelle? It's a gamble, and people running a business don't like gambles.

When it's enforced (like Ireland) the result seems to be positive, when it's introduced by a single venue (the SU in Leeds) it seems to fail miserably (takings down 50% in the first week or something disastrous like that).

Originally posted by Cyclone
When it's enforced (like Ireland) the result seems to be positive, when it's introduced by a single venue (the SU in Leeds) it seems to fail miserably (takings down 50% in the first week or something disastrous like that).

The fact that the takings went down 50% proves what ?

Given time people will get used to anything, but that doesn't mean they will learn to enjoy it, people are used to not smoking on planes but it's not like they enjoy it. People won't stop smoking because the pub doesn't allow it, they will just try to smoke a whole cig between pubs or spend most of the night stood outside smoking in the street.

I used to smoke but don't now, and it doesn't realy bother unless the pub is realy smokey, but I still think that there should be some smoking pubs where people can go if thats what they want to do.

Originally posted by nick2
The fact that the takings went down 50% proves what ?

Given time people will get used to anything, but that doesn't mean they will learn to enjoy it, people are used to not smoking on planes but it's not like they enjoy it. People won't stop smoking because the pub doesn't allow it, they will just try to smoke a whole cig between pubs or spend most of the night stood outside smoking in the street.

I used to smoke but don't now, and it doesn't realy bother unless the pub is realy smokey, but I still think that there should be some smoking pubs where people can go if thats what they want to do.

it proves that they had to change their policy quickly before the business went under... And that being the first to trial an idea isn't always a good plan. Which explains why, despite having the choice already, very few venues have gone non-smoking off their own bat.

I'd be happy to see a 50/50 split between smoking/non-smoking venues, but it won't happen, in which case i'd rather see a 100/0 split between non-smoking/smoking than the other way around.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it proves that they had to change their policy quickly before the business went under...

it proves that given the choice people went to a "normal" pub, despite the health risks.

Originally posted by nick2
it proves that given the choice people went to a "normal" pub, despite the health risks.

not necessarily. it might prove that they had a high number of smoking clientelle that they drove away, and they failed to adequately market the venue and attract any non smoking people who wouldn't normally go there.
It probably didn't help that it's a student only place, so all the succeded in doing was driving away 25% of the regulars who probably took another 25% with them as they were mates.

When the campaign against smoking first began around the end of the 70s, I, a very hard smoker at the time was militant against it. If I was invited into a house which banned smoking I would never again go in there. Restaurants in Conn. would have smoking/ no smoking sections with the last no smoker being right next to the smoker, a ridiculous situation.
Slowly but surely I began to see that doing without a cigarette with my after dinner coffee wasn't so big a chore after all, and when most restaurants went no smoke voluntarily, it bothered me not at all. Since that time I have quit altogether, and I'm sure one of the things that helped me was the fact that I was able to break a cycle of coffee cigarette or beer cigarette.
Connecticut has had a bar smoking ban for over a year now,as far as I can tell nobody has yet been fined for breaking the law.

Originally posted by Hook
I think Public Places includes outside of offices, pubs, supermarkets, and beer gardens. I'd hope so anyway! :clap:

as far as I'm aware you would be able to smoke outside of pubs.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't know why they haven't gone for the smoking or non-smoking pubs alternative. If some pubs were smoking and some wern't then people could go to whichever they choose.

this is the obvious option. Even though I smoke in pubs I hate really smokey pubs. Can you imagine if most pubs were non smoking how smokey the others would be :gag:

When I go out drinking there is always a mix of smokers/non smokers. Its likely that mixed groups would still end up going to smoking pubs as I know a lot of smokers who would refuse to go in non smoking ones.

It still comes down to breathing in other people's smoke or passive, involuntary or secondhand smoking.

Non-smokers breathe "sidestream" smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a major source of indoor air pollution.

Quite apart fromthe fact that tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases, many potentially toxic gases are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from sidestream smoke.

Environmental experts in the US have classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A carcinogen along with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas. Would you want anyone ingesting these chemicals because of your actions?

If you sit in a pub with passive smoke you soon fall victim to eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea.

People with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function and just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow.

ok, so would non-smoking drivers like to explain to me why I have to breath in their fumes every time I walk to work? Since I'd much rather stand behind a car exhaust than next to a smoker :rolleyes:

Originally posted by robbie
ok, so would non-smoking drivers like to explain to me why I have to breath in their fumes every time I walk to work? Since I'd much rather stand behind a car exhaust than next to a smoker :rolleyes:

There is no logical comparison to be made between a car and a smoker. Yes, both pollute, but in very different ways.

I don't get car fumes on my clothes when I spend an evening in a pub.

Lets just stick to the debate about cigarettes.

Cigarettes are a form of self-harm - discuss?

We already know that nicotine addiction is a form of chemical dependency.

Is smoking a cigarette as harmful on the inside as cutting yourself with a razor blade on the outside?

Whaddya think?

Originally posted by AndyK
Cigarettes are a form of self-harm - discuss?

We already know that nicotine addiction is a form of chemical dependency.

Is smoking a cigarette as harmful on the inside as cutting yourself with a razor blade on the outside?

Whaddya think?

I understand what you mean but I'm not sure I agree. People use harming as a way of coping with unresolved emotional problems. Physically I see the parallel you are making but emotionally I'd parallel smoking a cigarette with the 'harm' done to your system when you eat something with a high sugar content (that's addictive too) rather than a physical outlet for a sense of rage & pain that's too raw to be experienced as an emotion.

Originally posted by AndyK
Cigarettes are a form of self-harm - discuss?

We already know that nicotine addiction is a form of chemical dependency.

Is smoking a cigarette as harmful on the inside as cutting yourself with a razor blade on the outside?

Whaddya think?

Physically, you're much more likely to kill yourself by smoking than by cutting yourself with a razorblade - I forget the figures, but cutting yourself is one of the least effective suicide methods (though that's complicated by the fact that it's often used as a gesture rather than a serious attempt).

Of course the physical suffering goes on a lot longer for the smoker (on average).

As Siân points out, the intentions are very different in the two cases - I don't suppose that most smokers intend to harm themselves, despite that Smiths lyric about "I smoke because I'm hoping for an early death".

money money money

thats what is all about!

everybody knows the dangers of smoking and passive smoking.

however the government make so much tax from smoking that they want people to smoke as smokers pay their tobacco tax and then die younger, saving the government having to pay out on your old age ( nhs costs, pensions etc).

how hypocritical are the government trying to ban smoking in public places , but allowing the sale of cigarettes in most public places ( newsagents, petrol stations, supermarkets , etc..)

if the government truly had our welfare at heart then they would ban the sale of cigarettes in this country and promote smoking cessation at there expense


hanrahans opposite the hallamshire hospital for the last year or so has been a non- smoking pub, however recently this ban has been lifted, this is probably because they have made so much more money being a non smoking pub.........yeh right!

whilst I don't smoke, never will and think it's pretty stupid. I would oppose the government banning the sale of cigarettes on civil liberties grounds.

We should be free to kill ourselves however we like, just so long as we aren't hurting anyone else along the way.

I think it should be banned in all pubs but maybe have an area available for people to smoke.

Of course smoking shouldn't be banned in ALL pubs. Good grief! Crikey! Its half the fun! Chill-out, have a beer, smoke a fag...
Lots of people like smoking but if you don't like this go to non-smoking pub and chill-out there. :)

There won't be a problem with people smoking near hospital doors. Next year will see a total ban on smoking in hospital grounds; including outside the doors.

Our caving club changed its venue and started meetingin a smokey pub and I just can't go. I wake up the next day with a really bad throat. It should be banned its simply bad health!

Originally posted by mrchinnery
There won't be a problem with people smoking near hospital doors. Next year will see a total ban on smoking in hospital grounds; including outside the doors.

i wonder how they will police it:o

Blobfish - why don't you get them to meet in a less smokey pub? Or is it that some of your caving buddies smoke?

I agree with nailbag about the money aspect in the sense that there are clear reasons why the Government doesn't come up with harder hitting measures to curb smoking.

Research by the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York has shown that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £1.5 billion a year, yet the UK government earned £8,093 million in revenue from tobacco duty excluding VAT in the financial year 2003-04. (£8 Billion!!)

The Government currently spends around a paltry £30m on anti-smoking education campaigns. A further £41m is spent on measures to 'help' people stop smoking.

You guess why there's not more done to curb smoking!

Be careful what you wish for.
While I tend to agree that smoking should only be carried out where it harms only the person smoking, it should not the position of government to ban it altogether. Once you start to impose your will on a people and contol their private choices you are headed into total loss of personal freedom. It can be cigarettes today, or seat belts, but soon it could be total prohibition of drinking, or any of the other things a benevolent government doesn't want you to do. It would be hard to imagine that you would be told who to vote for, and if you didn't jail time or something worse. A cultured society allowed Adolf Hitler to control their thought and beliefs and the world ended up with years of war and death.
Do you think it can't happen? Don't chance it.

Originally posted by alchresearch
There is no logical comparison to be made between a car and a smoker. Yes, both pollute, but in very different ways.

I don't get car fumes on my clothes when I spend an evening in a pub.

Lets just stick to the debate about cigarettes.

iI have car fumes in my lungs though from people who don't need to drive into work

Smoking is a danger to one's health and costs the smoker a lot of money.
Alcohol also causes health problems and untold social problems and therefore it's obvious that drinking AND smoking should be banned in all pubs.What on earth 's wrong in nipping down to your local for a cheeseburger and a nice pepsi-cola ?
We must stamp out as quickly as possible this silly idea that people should be free to do as they like. The government obviously knows what's good for us and we don't see Tony or Peter quaffing back pints of bitter and smoking.
Even though Hitler had some rather odd ideas , he was right about a few things , at least------no smoking , no eating meat and no alcohol !

Are you for real? I have no wish to go eat a cheeseburger, and I hate pepsi. A nice lobster maybe, a pint of guiness, and yes maybe an illicit Marlboro. Its called living, and I have no wish to have Mr. Bush or Mr.Blair or the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury telling me what's good for me, and most certainly not you! By the way, Hitler is dead and good riddance.

Because I work in the Oncology department of a city hospital I am totally biased. I recently had to tell a vivacious 25 year-old to go home as there was nothing more which could be done for her, not even a double lung transplant would be effective as the problems had spread.

I would like to see a world-wide ban on the use of tobacco because it's the use not abuse that causes the problems. With alcohol it's abuse that kills and apart from the performances of drunk driver, wife beaters etc. the abuse of alcohol only affects the abuser.

How do we get the message through to our young people?

Ah well, must get down from my soap-box, got to go to work soon.

Banning smoking in public places is just a good start!

Chickmonk - if you think smoking is half the fun of going to your local just hope we (you and me) don't HAVE to meet sometime.

Take care out there.

Originally posted by Valerie
I would like to see a world-wide ban on the use of tobacco because it's the use not abuse that causes the problems. With alcohol it's abuse that kills and apart from the performances of drunk driver, wife beaters etc. the abuse of alcohol only affects the abuser.

How do we get the message through to our young people?
.

Bloody good point relating to alcohol. You have it spot on. Fraeast mentioned it causes untol social problems. Although true in a few cases i find it's the opposite :D

I've always found it's the teenage girsl that really need targeting. When i was at school and still now, the girls find it fashionable and do it to impress each other and the boys. The problem is how we can stop them.

I believe it will be easier to stop the boys, because if the girls dont like it a lad aged 15 with raging hormones aint going to want to upset her! :lol:

Originally posted by Fareast
Smoking is a danger to one's health and costs the smoker a lot of money.
Alcohol also causes health problems and untold social problems and therefore it's obvious that drinking AND smoking should be banned in all pubs.What on earth 's wrong in nipping down to your local for a cheeseburger and a nice pepsi-cola ?
We must stamp out as quickly as possible this silly idea that people should be free to do as they like. The government obviously knows what's good for us and we don't see Tony or Peter quaffing back pints of bitter and smoking.
Even though Hitler had some rather odd ideas , he was right about a few things , at least------no smoking , no eating meat and no alcohol !

when was the last time you walked into a pub and someone forced you to drink beer (or worse, second hand beer)?
Kill yourself with tobacco or alcohol, I don't care, just don't expect to take me with you.

There's been a lot of discussion about a hierarchy of harnful activity which is still perfectly legal, but please don't forget that deaths caused by smoking are five times higher than the deaths arising from:
road traffic accidents (3,439),
other accidents (8,579),
poisoning and overdose (881),
alcoholic liver disease (5,121),
murder and manslaughter (513),
suicide (4,066),
and HIV infection (234) in the UK last year alone.

Every year, around 114,000 smokers in the UK die as a result of their habit.

Bizarrely enough tobacco is the only legally available consumer product which kills people when it is used entirely as intended.

I think we should legislate to make it criminal offence to sell tobacco to young people under the age of 25

More than 80% of smokers take up the habit as teenagers.

In the United Kingdom about 450 children start smoking every day.

About one fifth of Britain's 15 year-olds – 18% of boys and 26% of girls - are regular smokers - despite the fact that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children aged under16.

People do give up - 21% of women and 27% of men are ex-smokers. Surveys show that about 70% of current smokers would like to give up altogether.

if the existing law doesn't work for 16 year olds, what makes you think that changing the limit would make any difference.

And there is no basis in english law for restricting activities to any age later than 18 as at that age you are an adult.

Valerie

I have thought about what you have said and it has effected me deeply. So much so that I have given up smoking and have decided never to leave the house again incase I die.

of something.

get a grip.

Originally posted by Rob_Roy
Having a smoking ban will have no effect on me (or any other smokers I know). I will carry on doing it despite the evidence saying I shouldn't.

What hacks me off is that everyone thinks they can have a go at smokers. What about the fat ********? Yes that's right.....the fat ********? You know, those people who stink to high heaven as soon as the thermometer goes above 15 degrees. Those people who have greatly increased the rate of asthma, diabetes, heart disease and all forms of cancer over the last 20 years.

You can say anything you like about smokers but god forbid you pick on porkers. At least smokers contribute via the taxes they pay whilst fat ******** cost the NHS more than smokers whilst contributing nothing.



Please moderate your language.

I personally don't smoke - have tried it at around 15 years of age but couldn't carry on even if I wanted to because of my chest.

A lot of my friends smoke and I really hate it when we go out and I choose to sit outside away from the smokers and they follow blowing their smoke in my face. (I appreciate most smokers don't do this - just my inconsiderate mates!). I also don't like having to go outside to get away from it, or deciding we have to go somewhere else where there is no smoking - mainly because my smoking friends couldn't follow.

I could be really cruel and selfish and say that I believe that smokers are choosing to do that to their bodies so they should stand outside for a fag - they're killing themselves anyway so why not risk pneumonia as well?! But I can see both sides.

I would like pubs to be non-smoking mainly because I'd like to go places with all my mates and not have to suffer the risks through passive smoking for the sake of a few mates who could go outside for a quick fag.

Each to their own, I don't hate/disapprove of smokers in any way as it is your individual choice...but I'd like to see all places non-smoking - I don't want to smoke so why should I have to inhale yours?!

Given AndyK's stats, I don't think I'm ever going to smoke again, or cross the road, or have medication in the house, or go up and downstairs (note to self - buy a bungalow. They're safer - no stairs to have a serious life threatening accident on) or drink alcohol (or anything else for that matter) eat food (could be poisoned), cross the road, drive a car, ride my motorbike, have sex (unless its with myself. No danger of aids then and I can be sure that my partner fancies me!), in fact I MAY NEVER LEAVE THE HOUSE AGAIN.

Having said that, if I stay indoors, the lack of sunlight and social interaction might kill me if the lack of food, drink, and general fun doesn't.

Oh the difficulties I have. How will I ever manage to stay alive?

and if I do, will I be living or just existing?

Why is it always the non-smokers who have to put up with things? Why can't a smoker put up with going out for a drink and not smoking rather than a non-smoker going for a drink and enduring passive smoking? It seems very one sided.

I just don't get this

I've been both a smoker and a non-smoker so can see both "sides" of this argument but....

...aint you people got anything better to be wound up about than some kid having a fag? I don't smoke now and whilst I would like everyone else to be like me they aint gonna be are they?

So why stress? I don't give a monkeys about my drinking buddies smoking or not.

But then I suppose they do say you think you're indestructible when you're young.

Originally posted by SilverMagic
A lot of my friends smoke and I really hate it when we go out and I choose to sit outside away from the smokers and they follow blowing their smoke in my face. (I appreciate most smokers don't do this - just my inconsiderate mates!). I also don't like having to go outside to get away from it, or deciding we have to go somewhere else where there is no smoking - mainly because my smoking friends couldn't follow.


If it bothers you so much either :

a) tell your mates to pack it in
b) get new mates

moaning about your "friends" on here isn't going to change anything.

And why can't I go out for a smoke without people waving alcohol in my face, making me feel ill? (I'm a non drinker).

I tolerate it, because thats where I want to be. If you don't like it, find somewhere else.

Perhaps the answer, rather than a total ban would be for some pubs to be smoking, and some non smoking. That way everyone is happy (except those of us that don't like the smell of alcohol cos it makes us puke, but I tolerate it anyway cos I want to be in the pub with my mates).

Or what about special smoking cafes/pubs in an amsterdam kinda style (without the illicit substances obviously, because that would be illegal). I'd go to a place like that, especially if they didn't serve that dirty alcohol stuff.

It doesn't bother me that much. I guess 'hate' was the wrong word to use on this thread as people will pick apart everything you say.

Plus who am I to say to my mates to pack it in?! And before you say it I'm not telling anyone to pack it in on here either - like I said 'each to their own'

I never said it would change anything, plus I don't really care what happens - as far as I can see smoking will not be banned in public places because of thousands of reasons stated by others. I was thinking of my ideal world; as I'm sure you all have.

SilverMagic - fair enough that you don't like your mates smoking. :)

Thing is is that us smokers seem to get it in the neck constantly about our 'filthy habit' yadda yadda.

I just wonder, why is it that the non-smoking sections in pubs are always empty (or at least much quieter) than the rest of the pub? If non-smokers are so desparate to be away from smokers and are in such majorities in pubs, where are they all? :suspect:

Originally posted by grinboy


Or what about special smoking cafes/pubs in an amsterdam kinda style (without the illicit substances obviously, because that would be illegal). I'd go to a place like that, especially if they didn't serve that dirty alcohol stuff.

This sounds like a good idea. A specific place where people who like smoking can go to smoke. I believe there are already cigar bars which are popular with cigar smokers so why not extend the idea.

chickmonk

I know where they all are - They're sat with the smokers, cos everyone knows smoking is cool and hard. Obviously non smokers want to be with the cool hard people cos they're more interesting than whingers

chickmonk - Have to say I agree = where are they all? I tend to sit in the smoking areas because of who I go out with. I don't complain because I like their company. If I go out with my parents or a bunch of non-smokers we will however go sit in the non-smoking areas. In some, not all, places the non-smoking areas are separated from the smoking areas by a plant so you still get the smoke. In my view there's no point - once your in a smokey place, unless the non-smoking is very well ventilated and all that stuff then your gonna get the smoke anyway. I guess those that really don't like it, just don't go in. Good point though

So, it looks like non-smoking areas could do with some improvements...

Though, I have been in places that have been well ventilated and still the non-smoking area is empty. Curious...

like I said previously chickmonk - Smoking is cool and hard. no one wants to be associated with the non smokers

Originally posted by chickmonk

I just wonder, why is it that the non-smoking sections in pubs are always empty (or at least much quieter) than the rest of the pub?

Well that isn't my experience - in the places I go to the non-smoking sections are usually busier than the smoking sections, which usually just contain a few old geezers. But maybe that's not normal - any landlords out there who can set us straight?

Edit. Mind you, there aren't many places that have proper non-smoking sections. Having a non-smoking area of a room that also has a smoking area is completely pointless, because of diffusion.

in a word - NO! whats thwe point of going out for a chill out when you cant have a smoke every now and again with your pint!!! Crazy.

he he he

wonder what msb will say ???


:loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by grinboy
chickmonk

I know where they all are - They're sat with the smokers, cos everyone knows smoking is cool and hard. Obviously non smokers want to be with the cool hard people cos they're more interesting than whingers

wow, your argument is so good, how could we ever come back from such a rejoinder.

Are you 12? Cool and hard, :clap: you must be 12 right?

Someone else had a nice analogy about non smoking sections. It's like having a p*ssing area in a swimming pool.

I think pubs and smoking and drinking go hand in hand - if you ban one then you ban everything. Everything shouldn't be banned because then we couldn't have this conversation - there!

Let's all just wrap ourselves in cotton wool, make sure the car has air bags in the roof in case it rolls over, eat tofu, and live 50 feet underground in case the Chinese launch a surprise nuclear attack, and send out some poor swaddies to die for us. Oh sorry, we do that already.

Originally posted by buck
Let's all just wrap ourselves in cotton wool, make sure the car has air bags in the roof in case it rolls over, eat tofu, and live 50 feet underground in case the Chinese launch a surprise nuclear attack, and send out some poor swaddies to die for us. Oh sorry, we do that already.

no one suggested that we stop people smoking, I just don't want to have to breath there 2nd hand and sidestream smoke.

Have we done it to death yet - keep voting in the smoking poll and join me for a smoke free pint in the Rutland one Friday evening 5-6pm

Thanks to everyone whose commented and put their four penorth in.

good one yer !!

Originally posted by AndyK
Have we done it to death yet - keep voting in the smoking poll and join me for a smoke free pint in the Rutland one Friday evening 5-6pm

Thanks to everyone whose commented and put their four penorth in.

good one yer !!

is the rutland a no smoking pub then ?

ever so slightly off topic but does anyone remember the weirdo who used to protest outside the crucible against smoking, in the end i think the crucible took an injunction out on him stopping him from outside there so he had to do his 1 man protest at the bottom end of chapel walk

would any of the anti smoking lobby do that or would they protest outside bars etc or do they only feel comfortable doing it sat at a desk:)

Chickmonk - thanks for responding. If you ever have to come face-to-face with someone in my profession on a professional matter please remember this date/time 22.06.05 01.51 pm. I try to get the message through every day, no age group is spared, from pre-schoolers to grandparents.

Good luck to all tobacco users - I think you will need it.

Valerie

It's amazing how the non smokers think they are immortal - do they think they're never going to die? Perhaps they live in fairy tale land and think that when they do they will be 100 years old and die peacefully in their sleep - unfortunately the facts are that if they never go near a smoker they are more likely to die with cancer or a heart attack than in their sleep - life is full of intoxicants other than cigarette smoke, including fumes from the vehicles that these so called considerate non smokers drive. Even without intoxicants face it, you have to die

sally - I notice that you told abdul to leave the anti-anti-smoking thread. So maybe you should leave this one?

buh bye.

:wave: :wave: :wave:

this thread is not an anti-smoking thread, it is an open discussion, asking for opinions.

Do non smokers not have a sense of humour?

I am sure there was a lot of jest and banter going off there - perhaps Abdul may agree with me???

Don't take life too seriously - live life, be happy

The city I left so many years ago was a dirty old town full of hard drinking, hard smoking men who sweated their days away in the steel works. Now it seems to be a squeaky clean city full of squeaky clean people who only seem to know one word...BAN.
Or is it just a bunch of wimps from outside the city who are SU undergrads?

Originally posted by buck
The city I left so many years ago was a dirty old town full of hard drinking, hard smoking men who sweated their days away in the steel works. Now it seems to be a squeaky clean city full of squeaky clean people who only seem to know one word...BAN.
Or is it just a bunch of wimps from outside the city who are SU undergrads?

is it 'hard' to smoke? Hard in the head, but nothing else.

If the city has changed like you said, then it's a change for the better.
Personally i'm a graduate from the city. I never had any plans to work in the steel industry (following one grandfather) or downs the mines (following the other). And despite both of them smoking (they both stopped by the way) I never plan to do that either. I'm sure there both proud of what I am doing though and would prefer it to trying to follow them.

As a vehement anti-smoker one may imagine I'd be for a blanket ban, but I feel there should be smoking and non smoking pubs and I also feel that some smokers could be more considerate when smoking in public areas.

Pubs used to have rooms allocated for the smokers
- imaginatively called The Smoke Room - once upon a time.

What happened in the decline of these one wonders?

I find that when I go out with a group, the smokers in the group (who are usually in the minority) tend to govern where the group sits, and it's usually in the smoking section. So we all have to stink & passive smoke rather than them missing out on a bit of twaddle conversation while they partake in their drug round.

Anyway my opinion of No Smoking Areas in pubs is like having No Peeing areas in swimming pools. You still get it in the end.
:gag:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
I find that when I go out with a group, the smokers in the group (who are usually in the minority) tend to govern where the group sits, and it's usually in the smoking section. So we all have to stink & passive smoke rather than them missing out on a bit of twaddle conversation while they partake in their drug round.


I don't understand how all you non-smokers with smoking friends are controlled by them, they tell you where to sit and which pub to go to, don't you ever say "p*ss-off over there and have a smoke, we'll sit here" ?
Do smokers have some kind of mind-control powers that enables them to get people to do things they don't want to do ?

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
As a vehement anti-smoker one may imagine I'd be for a blanket ban, but I feel there should be smoking and non smoking pubs and I also feel that some smokers could be more considerate when smoking in public areas.

Pubs used to have rooms allocated for the smokers
- imaginatively called The Smoke Room - once upon a time.

What happened in the decline of these one wonders?

I find that when I go out with a group, the smokers in the group (who are usually in the minority) tend to govern where the group sits, and it's usually in the smoking section. So we all have to stink & passive smoke rather than them missing out on a bit of twaddle conversation while they partake in their drug round.

Anyway my opinion of No Smoking Areas in pubs is like having No Peeing areas in swimming pools. You still get it in the end.
:gag:

Originally posted by nick2
I don't understand how all you non-smokers with smoking friends are controlled by them, they tell you where to sit and which pub to go to, don't you ever say "p*ss-off over there and have a smoke, we'll sit here" ?
Do smokers have some kind of mind-control powers that enables them to get people to do things they don't want to do ?

maybe the problem is that smokers tend to be selfish and non smokers tend to be generous. So the generous non smokers put up with the selfish behaviour of the smokers.

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe the problem is that smokers tend to be selfish and non smokers tend to be generous. So the generous non smokers put up with the selfish behaviour of the smokers.

Thats one interpretation, another might be that non-smokers actually like being the victim and having something to moan about, otherwise they would say something ?

Originally posted by nick2
Thats one interpretation, another might be that non-smokers actually like being the victim and having something to moan about, otherwise they would say something ?

I take the approach of not having any friends who smoke.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I take the approach of not having any friends who smoke.

Exactly, why put up with "mates" who smoke and inflict it on you ? Either get new friends or have some backbone and tell them where they stand.
I have smoking and non-smoking mates, but we always sit in the non-smoking area (if one is available) and the smokers go outside or into the smoking area for a fag, everyone is happy with this arangement, no-one has to breath anyones smoke and no-one has to sit and fume in silent anger all night.

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe the problem is that smokers tend to be selfish and non smokers tend to be generous. So the generous non smokers put up with the selfish behaviour of the smokers.

i think you are rather generalising here and discriminating here. Are you now saying then that all non smokers are good people and smokers are bad?

I have a bad habit and I admit to that - I have everything to break that habit including hypnosis, acapucture etc and failed - I am a lost cause - I am therefore guilty of having an addictive nature and being weak willed, whatever one may wish to call it.

Other than that I am well educated, have a good job, brought my children up to do well in their life - i consider myself to be generous, kind, and tolerant, alright maybe a little selfish, but then so are many people. You could say people are selfish that drive motor vehicles - they too are polluting the atmosphere. I have a friend who is a smoking counsellor :cool: (she does not agree with a total ban) - she states that youwould actually have more carbon monoxide in your system walking past heavy traffic than if you were sat at the side of a non smoker.

Therefore, we are all selfish to a degree, in our lifestyle.

There is room for tolerance on both sides - it is not impossible to have smoking and none smoking rooms, or even smoking and non smoking pubs, then everyone has a choice.

I could generalise here and say that all non smokers are obsessive intolerant health freaks who do not accept they also contirbute one way or another to polluting the atmosphere. That however is not the case, - some are, and some aren't. I therefore object to being categorised as being some horrible person.

this post is about whether smoking should be banned in pubs are not - why do some people use these posts simply as a means to "slag" people off who they never even met.

my comment was meant to be a little bit tongue in cheak and glib.

Not smoking isn't offensive though, i've never been offended by anyone standing next to me and wafting clean air onto me by not lighting up, but the opposite happens.
I'm sure there are considerate smokers, but by not lighting up next to me, I've not realised that they are a smoker. So it's just some smokers tarring (get it) all of them with the same brush.

Smoking rooms would be fine, if fitted with airlocks and not requiring non-smoking staff to ever enter them, and if mixed groups weren't forced into them by the smokers in the group.

A mixed city of smoking/non smoking venues won't work. Unfortunately, because it would be the fairest way.

Smokers do love to bring transport into the argument. It's not comparable. i don't drive because i'm addicted to driving, you don't smoke in order to keep your job and bring money home. They are completely different issues.
Should the issue of transport pollution be tackled, yes it should, is it in anyway comparable to smoking, no it isn't.

Originally posted by sally_sheff
i think you are rather generalising here and discriminating here. Are you now saying then that all non smokers are good people and smokers are bad?

I have a bad habit and I admit to that - I have everything to break that habit including hypnosis, acapucture etc and failed - I am a lost cause - I am therefore guilty of having an addictive nature and being weak willed, whatever one may wish to call it.

Other than that I am well educated, have a good job, brought my children up to do well in their life - i consider myself to be generous, kind, and tolerant, alright maybe a little selfish, but then so are many people. You could say people are selfish that drive motor vehicles - they too are polluting the atmosphere. I have a friend who is a smoking counsellor :cool: (she does not agree with a total ban) - she states that youwould actually have more carbon monoxide in your system walking past heavy traffic than if you were sat at the side of a non smoker.

Therefore, we are all selfish to a degree, in our lifestyle.

There is room for tolerance on both sides - it is not impossible to have smoking and none smoking rooms, or even smoking and non smoking pubs, then everyone has a choice.

I could generalise here and say that all non smokers are obsessive intolerant health freaks who do not accept they also contirbute one way or another to polluting the atmosphere. That however is not the case, - some are, and some aren't. I therefore object to being categorised as being some horrible person.

this post is about whether smoking should be banned in pubs are not - why do some people use these posts simply as a means to "slag" people off who they never even met.

Originally posted by Cyclone
maybe the problem is that smokers tend to be selfish and non smokers tend to be generous. So the generous non smokers put up with the selfish behaviour of the smokers.
This does kind of hit the (coffin) nail on the head.

In my own circles.

If I began spraying a dangerous chemical around in pubs which smokers inhaled they would be among the first to call for a ban- No doubt about it! There's over 4,000 different chemicals in cigarette smoke and still it legal. Funny or tragic?

Actually I used to light joss sticks (incence sticks) at home when I was a teenager. Both my parents were chain smokers, you should have heard them rant at 'the stink' .
I always said that if they hadn't got double standards they'd have no standards at all!!:hihi: :hihi: :P

smoking ban in Wetherspoons coming into play in 6 weeks btw

Wetherspoons Pubs - McDonalds with Beer?

They claim to be individual in character but they are characterless and there's more atmosphere in space.

yup, i voted yes. im a smoker but i think i would stop if pubs were off limits, thus doing me a favour.
infact lets go the whole hog and say smoking should only be allowed in the home, or the host's home with their permission.

Originally posted by AndyK
Wetherspoons Pubs - McDonalds with Beer?

They claim to be individual in character but they are characterless and there's more atmosphere in space.
I'm sorry AndyK but there are very, very few pubs with any character remaining in Sheffield, and Weatherspoons, is welcome as far as I'm concerned, but I don't want to go in one every night I go out.

Pubs with character that have recently lost it include, The Hallamshire on West street, The hornblower, [now gone completely] The Abbey at Woodseats [due to terrible management], Slug and Fiddle, now a faceless football bar, Classic Rock Bar [this one brings a tear to my eye, closed due to be flats]

I don't go in pubs much so to me it doesn't really matter, I gave up drinking for many reasons but one of those was because it seemed a waste of money to be frank. But I do smoke (addicted but considering quitting), and I've thought through all the arguments.

One point that occurs is that if so many people want no-smoking pubs then why aren't there more of them? Clearly the issue is not a serious enough one to keep people away from their beloved alcohol. And as for the socialising argument which comes from that one - there's a hell of alot of stuff to do that doesn't involve ale!

But the argument which swings it for me is considering the staff who work in pubs. They're often (not always, before anyone jumps down my throat) low skilled and can't get other work. Also pubs are non-unionised unlike the usual office job which makes sure staff are protected from hazrads such as smoke. So the staff are in quite a bind, and it's thinking of that which would make me in favour of - maybe not that strong, but perhaps more, I'm not bothered about it - a ban, thinking it through logically.

I think banning smoking outdoors is pretty silly however. Considering the amount of fumes (made up of heavy metals which stay at ground level) we get from vehicles, the dangers of breathing some highly dissipated cigarette smoke are small. This area of the debate brings us into the territory of the nanny state. We are all well aware of the health risks, and it is ultimately up to us to decide what to do with our own bodies where the risks we pose to others are low; our bodies are our own and neither the state nor anyone else owns them (yet).

If the government seriously does want people to give up smoking then it ought to do much more to help people. But I do suspect that revenue is a strong factor; they need to be heard making a lot of noise about the issue, putting a spin on it, but I question if they really do take our health as a serious issue.

i'm an example of the group that would go to a non smoking venue if there was any choice. Since there isn't though, i'm not going to not go out.
The bars just need to cater to the lowest common demoninator, knowing that people will put up with the smoke if there is no other choice.

Has a ban in the open air even been mentioned by the government? Buildings, bus stops, places like that I can understand, but just in the open air, seems like you say rather like big brother.

Originally posted by Mathom
One point that occurs is that if so many people want no-smoking pubs then why aren't there more of them?

Hi Mathom,
My belief is that most people who are pub managers/landlords are themselves, drinkers and most of them smokers/heavy smokers, and have no intrest in promoting smoke free environments because it would make their job much harder and restrict their own smoking.

At the same time, less and less of my friends smoke, and less and less of them go to pubs. I however love pubs, and don't smoke and know of only one room in one pub which is near enough for me to use which has no smoking, and it is by far the most busy room in the pub, on friday and saturday nights when I am likely to go. Summer is ok because we can use beer gardens, but often we are trying to find corners where the smoke isn't too bad.

In principle I don't mind people smoking but smokers all, eventually forget that I/we are not smoking and start blowing it into my face, they don't even realise they are doing it and it is totally disgusting and I just want to go home when it happens.

I am sure when there are a few non smoking pubs which are well advertised and known about by all the local community, loads of people will flock to them and they will be the busiest pubs, just like in Ireland, where my friend has come back from Dublin and other towns, and didn't even notice that people weren't smoking, but the atmosphere was the same and everywhere was busier than last visit about 6 years ago.
With the additional advantage that you felt much better in the morning and you can wear your outer clothes for another day, without smelling revolting.

Are we now saying that smoking ADDS character to a pub?
I think characterless pubs should be shut down. Have you been in YATES in Shefield City Centre this is one of the most characterless City Centre bars in the world. Whereas the Sheaf View in Heeley ...well that's a pub!

I keep wondering why, if it is such an important issue, non-smokers do not stay away from overly smoky pubs? If a shop has rude staff or is always too busy, I stay away and use another instead. What is it that makes non-smokers continue to use pubs which are too smoky? Obviously this would mean staying away from pubs altogether, so what is the bigger driver in this matter? The beer or the smoke?

I wonder, do pub landlords get a 'cut' from sales at the cigarette machine?

I am intrigued by how this will operate with nightclubs. Obviously it's easy to leave the pub for a quick smoke, but nightclubs have entrance fees, so how are people going to go outside for one? And what happens when the smoke machine gets switched on, do all the smokers rush to it with their gaspers so they won't be spotted?

What's the problem with smoking at bus stops though? That one's got me mystified. :confused:

Originally posted by AndyK
Whereas the Sheaf View in Heeley ...well that's a pub!

Yeah, it is great, but that hill behind it, good grief, thats hard work at the end of the night :)

Originally posted by Mathom
I keep wondering why, if it is such an important issue, non-smokers do not stay away from overly smoky pubs?
They just stay away from all pubs. Large swathes of the population don't use a pub from one year to the next, because they are all thought of as smoky.

Meanwhile people like me and my friends, choose pubs which are less smoky. We don't go into the Abbey anymore or the Washington because of this.

what would you do if every shop had rude staff, starve?

If there was a smoke free venue, then i'd use it, but there aren't, so I have to make do with the less smoky.

The problem with bus stops is that it's damned rude and unecessary for someone to walk up to it, stand next to me and then try to poison me.

Originally posted by Mathom
I keep wondering why, if it is such an important issue, non-smokers do not stay away from overly smoky pubs? If a shop has rude staff or is always too busy, I stay away and use another instead. What is it that makes non-smokers continue to use pubs which are too smoky? Obviously this would mean staying away from pubs altogether, so what is the bigger driver in this matter? The beer or the smoke?

I wonder, do pub landlords get a 'cut' from sales at the cigarette machine?

I am intrigued by how this will operate with nightclubs. Obviously it's easy to leave the pub for a quick smoke, but nightclubs have entrance fees, so how are people going to go outside for one? And what happens when the smoke machine gets switched on, do all the smokers rush to it with their gaspers so they won't be spotted?

What's the problem with smoking at bus stops though? That one's got me mystified. :confused:

So the goverment have decided to impose only a partial ban on smoking in publlic.
It looks like those of us here in England are not going to be offerd the same protection as the people of Scotland and Ireland.
They have failed in their duty to protect the health of our nation and having failed to take heed of the BMA and the rest of the medical profession are a discrace.
A silly fudge which will satisfy no one in the end.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27102005/325/smoking-ban-prompts-government-row.html

I don't think it's over yet. The house of commons have got to vote it through, and the main body of Labour party MPs are supposed to be really angry that it's been watered down and the Conservatives are not happy about it either.

I'm a non-smoker, but I don't think there should be a total ban on smoking in pubs.

IMO there are two types of public place: compulsory and optional. Train stations, bus stations, sports stadiums etc are compulsory because there is only usually one of them in a given place. Pubs and restaurants are optional - you don't have to go there and there is usually plenty of choice available.

I'd support a ban on smoking in public places, but I think pubs and restaurants should be left to the will of the market. Let people set up exclusively non-smoking pubs and restaurants, then if there is a demand for these, it will be reflected in their attendances. People don't have to go to the pub, if they feel strongly enough about smoking they can choose to stay at home.

As for pub workers, they knew the risks when they took on the job. Going to work in a pub and complaining about the smoke is like going to the north pole and complaining about the cold.

i dont think there should be a ban at all

BUT

the ban they've just made public is an absolute sham LOL

most places will just stop serving food ( if food is actually defined properly)

and if its supposed to be healthier and stop people breathing in smoke, then why just where food is served??? surely thats just good manners not about improving the nations health

fcuked up politicians yet again .........watered down labour

Originally posted by melthebell
most places will just stop serving food ( if food is actually defined properly)


I'm not sure, pubs make a fair bit of money on "food".

Originally posted by melthebell
i dont think there should be a ban at all
most places will just stop serving food ( if food is actually defined properly)


Don't think that will happen. As Nick says, they make quite a lot of money on food. I think that the places that serve food will see a rise in profits anyway, as has happened in the bars in Ireland.

Given that most people don't smoke, and most non-smokers find smoking in their presence unpleasant. I think that the bars you can smoke in will see an absence of their non-smoking patrons, who will go to the many smoke free pubs there will be.

Originally posted by Snook
Given that most people don't smoke, and most non-smokers find smoking in their presence unpleasant. I think that the bars you can smoke in will see an absence of their non-smoking patrons, who will go to the many smoke free pubs there will be.

But that doesn't seem to happen, there are/have been non-smoking pubs in Sheffield before but people still go to the smoking pubs for some reason.

If there realy was a massive demand for non-smoking pubs someone would have opened a chain of them, having a huge market all to yourself is a real winner in bussiness.

The only way to make it work is to not give people a choice, unfortunately.

Food is an important factor in some pubs and I wonder if some pubs would go in favour of smoking rather than serving food. Would more people go to eat if there was a smoking ban or would less people go if there was a smoking ban? I personally think there should be a total ban. It works in Ireland, most of the pubs there provide space outside with patio heaters and shelter for the smokers - if you're that desperate you don't mind the cold and those are pubs out in the sticks. I am a smoker myself and I agree with a total ban in public places.

I haven't read all the posts so maybe this has already been answered but can anyone tell me if pubs will be allowed to serve food at certain times only and allow smoking at other times, or if they serve food at all this will stop them being a smoking pub?

hahahahah! I knew you lot would be crying about this.

A welcome defeat for the nanny state. Eat your heart out killjoys!

:D :D :D

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by InvalidUser
hahahahah! I knew you lot would be crying about this.

A welcome defeat for the nanny state. Eat your heart out killjoys!

:D :D :D

:clap: :clap: :clap:


It aint over yet as someone has pointed out,the fag brigade are on their way out and the sooner the better.;)

One step closer to a police state you mean.
If someone wants to smoke what gives anyone else the right to tell them they can't. It's all down to killjoys who want to make everyone else' life miserable just because theirs is. If you don't like the smoke then don't go in the pubs where smokers are and then complain about the smoke, you don't have to stay there you can leave.
As for the excuse of (then let them have their own hospitals) not national health ones, fine but let the tax from cigaretts pay for it and see how many of your national health hospitals go under from lack of funds. Smokers help to pay for them with the tax on tobacco.
:clap:
PS. I am a non smoker but I belive in live and let live.

Originally posted by nick2
But that doesn't seem to happen, there are/have been non-smoking pubs in Sheffield before but people still go to the smoking pubs for some reason.

If there realy was a massive demand for non-smoking pubs someone would have opened a chain of them, having a huge market all to yourself is a real winner in bussiness.

The only way to make it work is to not give people a choice, unfortunately.

Almost like weatherspoons eh, a highly sucessfull, non smoking chain of pubs...

The problem isn't lack of demand, it's the fact that if nearly every pub in sheffield is a smoking pub, what incentive have they to change. At the moment the people who don't like it have pretty much no choice (i'm not spending all evening in a weatherspoons), so there's nothing to gain by being the first pub to go non smoking.

Albatross, if someone wants to take wiffs of cyanide gas, what right do we have to stop them, just because it's going to kill every damn person in the pub, they should have just gone elsewhere right.

Or if i want to stand in the pub and wave my arms about wildly in the direction of your face, what right have you to stop me, you shouldn't have put your face infront of my fists... Do you see the similarity? I'm not allowed to assault you with my hands, why should you be allowed to assault me with a noxious vapour?

I don't think smoking should be banned in all pubs, there should be proper separate areas (as it is very rarely the case), and strict interdiction to smoke at the bar. I do understand that non smokers should not inhale our poisonous puffs, but at the same time, i have a big problem with the authorities' battle against cigarettes, when alcohol and drugs do a lot more damage and cost a lot more to society than tobacco. Of course you cannot fight against binge drinking as it is an institution (sadly) but i am still waiting for a car crash or a fight to be triggered by nicotine intake.. Ask any judge how many cases they had of cigarette-related crime, and compare with the ones due to excessive drinking or drugs taking, you may wonder where the priorities should be.

Originally posted by Cyclone
AAlbatross, if someone wants to take wiffs of cyanide gas, what right do we have to stop them, just because it's going to kill every damn person in the pub


Overreaction, moi ?

I think this thread should be closed.

The same posts and opinions just keep recycling themselves again and again.
It's just a waste of disk space.

Neither side is taking any notice of the other and both are just preaching their inflexible opinions.

No , you're wrong there , Muddycoffee . The non-smokers and smokers are gradually reaching a consensus.
The non-smokers have agreed that they'll no longer ride around in cars for pleasure , in case the rest of us suffer from the fumes . None of the non-smokers will work for companies that pollute the atmosphere and , of course , none of them will eat or drink to excess in case it causes any of us inconvenience or ill-heajth . [ God forbid that any of us should be a burden on the N.H.S.!]
So , you see , everything is o.k. Deep down we are all reasonable , tolerant people , not social fascists !

Originally posted by Albatross
Smokers help to pay for them with the tax on tobacco.
:clap:
.

Actually the typical non-smoker pays MORE tax than the typical smoker.

Anyway, tax isn't the issue. People can still buy cigarettes it is just that there will be a few extra restrictions on where they can be smoked.

On the choice issue it is not always that simple. I go out to a pub with a group of people once a week. Only 3 of them smoke but the whole group ends up having to sit in the smoking area to please them.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
People can still buy cigarettes it is just that there will be a few extra restrictions on where they can be smoked.

Look on the bright side, there'll be fewer restrictions on where non-smokers can go without being in danger of exposure to passive smoking. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I go out to a pub with a group of people once a week. Only 3 of them smoke but the whole group ends up having to sit in the smoking area to please them.

I can't understand that, are the 3 smokers dominatrixes or something ?

Why don't you say something ?

Why are you friends with them if you hate smoking so much ?

What are you going to do when the 3 can't smoke in the pub, will you stand outside with them ?

I agree with nick2 ,this is pathetic that you allow 3 selfish people who happen to be your friends to dictate to you where you go.
Why not tell THEM that they are making you feel uncomfortable with their smoke and do they mind waiting till they are outside.

Originally posted by AndyK
Pubs & clubs will attract far more customers if smoking is banned, but the issue really is one of public health

Smoking kills - the facts
- Smoking just three to six cigarettes each day doubles your chance of having a heart attack.

- Smokers are more than twice as likely to have a fatal heart attack than non-smokers.

- One in five people in Britain die from smoking - that's more than 115,000 every year.

- About half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their habit.

- Those who smoke regularly and die of a smoking-related disease, lose on average 16 years from their life expectancy compared to non-smokers.

Smoking causes heart disease - the facts
- Smoking is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease. Others include high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol levels and physical inactivity.

- CHD is Britain's single biggest killer. Every two minutes someone in the UK has a heart attack.

- Non-smokers living with smokers have a 30% increased risk of developing CHD.

- Around five million children are regularly exposed to second hand smoke in the home.

- Smoking enhances the build up of fatty deposits - atheroma - in the walls of our arteries, restricting blood flow and increasing the risk of a heart attack.

- This build up of fatty deposits can trigger formation of blood clots, which can block blood flow causing a heart attack or stroke.

- Smoking reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen, depriving the heart of vital nutrients.


Giving up smoking - the facts
- Around one in four people in Britain smoke cigarettes.

- In California, where only one in six people smoke, there is a ban on smoking in public places, higher taxation and greater use of shock advertising tactics.

- Around 70% of smokers want to give up.

- If you've had a heart attack, continuing to smoke doubles your risk of having another heart attack within one year.

- Stopping smoking is the single most important thing a smoker can do to avoid a heart attack. It's always beneficial to stop.

Convinced yet?
Not to mention the fact that 50% of those who smoke are killed by their habit.

Well, looks like it's all going through as a total ban after all.
The government has decided to make the issue a free vote rather than a whipped one where only pubs which serve food will ban smoking.
So as a majority of all MPs are in favour of a total smoking ban in pubs and other places of work, it looks like the free vote will result in a total smoking ban in pubs.
The Labour Government were in danger of inflicting upon themselves a damaging defeat, because there were enough back benchers and opposition members to overturn the new legislation, so they have given in and allowed the labour members to have a free vote on the issue. Sense at last I hear you all say!

There is some talk about allowing private clubs to have their own smoking policies, this in my view is a good idea as the only clubs this will affect in Sheffield will be the old working men's clubs, some of which are struggling to survive anyhow, this may hand them a lifeline. And be somewhere for the last few smokers to go.

My prediction is pubs will fill up like they never have before, when the majority of the population realise that they can go for a drink without smelling of smoke. :clap:

Originally posted by muddycoffee
My prediction is pubs will fill up like they never have before, when the majority of the population realise that they can go for a drink without smelling of smoke. :clap:
Waetherspoons will cash in on this smooke free pubs and cheap beer

Originally posted by Zinger549
Waetherspoons will cash in on this smooke free pubs and cheap beer
Zinger what has that go to do with anything?

Haven't you read my post, don't you realise that ALL PUBS and nightclubs will be cashing in this time next year with their smoke free premises. It will totally revive the industry.

Yes it should. Smokers are always bleating on about having their rights taken away from them. What about us having the right to breathe clean air and not stink everytime we go into a pub. This coming from someone who used to smoke, but would never dream of doing it where someone objected to it. The sooner it's banned - the better.

Smokers should be hunted down by roving death squads and executed on the spot. I'm sure the cost of this could soon be recouped by confiscating and selling off their possesions.

Their bodies could be rendered down to make soap and their ready tanned hides made into lamp shades.

(errr did I get it right? Is this intolerant enough for Sheffield Forum?)

I completely agree

Hi, i don't know anybody here so I don't know what your views are about smoking. I've nothing against smokers but like to go to pubs which are non smoking, have no smoking areas (which aren't ignored by some e.g. Dev Cat) , or are fairly ok anyway.

In the Red Deer last week I commented that it 'wasn't too bad tonight' to which the manageress (who really is nice) immediately jumped to the defensive saying that they 'can't throw them all out'. It's a real shame that bar staff are so concerned about their smoking customers without wanting to do anything for those of us who don't like smoke. We are in a majority but have to put up and shut up.

The Red Deer says 'no smoking at the bar' maybe it should be the other way round, same for many other pubs.
It's time to redress the balance, smokers have had it too good too long. I can choose to sit somewhere where it's not too smoky but can't control who comes and sits nearby and invariably blows their smoke in my direction, they have no consideration whatsoever. Sorry if this causes offence to any of you reading if you are similar culprits and I am just one of the 'anti smoking brigade' trying to spoil your 'freedom of choice'. We should have freedom of choice too, I'm sure if I farted, vomited or sprayed deodorant in the air near you to dispel the smoke, then smokers would be visibly (and probably violently) offended

Here. (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45313) :thumbsup:

Thanks Meaks, I am fairly new to the forum so I wondered if the topic had been covered before -
75% in favour of smoking ban, a better response than I thought I would find, I'm surprised.
But if anyone wants to debate (for or against a ban etc.) then feel free (or direct me to another thread if relevant if you know it...). Cheers.

Mod: Threads merged. Thanks for the link Meaks :)

I smoke. 20 a day.

I wish I didnt, but I do.
Has anyone ever read George Orwell's 1984?

Don't you think that "fictional" story is becoming more and more of a reality each and every year?

Banning smoking all together - I'm all for.

Banning smoking in certain areas, I disagree with.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
My prediction is pubs will fill up like they never have before, when the majority of the population realise that they can go for a drink without smelling of smoke. :clap:

I don't think many more people will suddenly start going out drinking just because the pub is non-smoking, but if I'm wrong and thousands more do decide to go out on a Saturday night god help the pubs, they can barley contain the numbers of people who go out now, the pub might be smoke free but you will probably get crushed to death instead.

I think the big problem with smoking in public is the fact that smokers enjoying their particular indulgence, inevitably share it with others around them.
Whilst I fully support every ones right to kill themselves in anyway they wish, and we all do things that aren't "necessary" but are potentially life threatening, (please feel free to post your own, I'll start, I own a motorcycle) but we don't normally force it on others.
When I sit in the pub I can see people drinking, but that's not going to make my liver fail. I can see people eating but that's not going to make me obese. I can see people smoking and statistically that will give me health problems!!
Staying away from the pub is not a choice, my choice is to go to the pub and not have to breathe other peoples smoke.
Smokers, you do not have the right to risk my health under any circumstances.
I wonder why the government doesn't use the "Health and Safety at Work act" to ban smoking in the work place. In industry we would not be allowed to expose employees to the lethal mix of toxins that bar staff are exposed to.

Thanks for that comment wandershelf, Dave Allen also said it in a fantastic way - that the byproduct of his beer was his urine, and in the same way that he didn't expect someone else's smoke over him (after he'd renounced his cigar, presumably), he was sure the smoker didn't expect someone to p*** over them. cheers, Pete.

Passive smoking is one of my few pleasures, and now they're trying to take it away from me...

Originally posted by Dear_Ladies
Passive smoking is one of my few pleasures, and now they're trying to take it away from me...

Dear_Ladies, what a truly brilliant post.

Still doubled-up with laughing:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)