who backs a total ban on smoking in ALL public places?

I 100% back a total ban on smoking in public, I just don't think it will ever happen while the jobsworths drag their feet over the issue :rant:

Most we'll get under Blair is a ban on smoking where food is sold or consumed, which is better than nothing but still not good :(

Couldn't we have had a "Bothered?" option?:D

being a smoker who is hoping to give it up this week, i agree to some extent.

Yes, it should be banned in restaurants and places were children are present but i dont think it should be banned in pubs/clubs etc.

I understand that not all people who go to pubs/clubs are smokers but surely to counteract this they should have a well ventilated smokers area????.

and as for banning smoking in the workplace, shouldnt people be WORKING and not smoking???. Fair enough, in my line of work i do smoke while i work but i am in a seperate office to customers and there are only two of us in this office and we both smoke. If i do pack it in i dont expect my colleague not to light up when she wants a fag.

I think that the world would be a nicer place for non-smokers if smokers understood and cooperated with the fact that most non-smokers have no wish to share second hand smoke. Previously one of the arguments that support allowing smoking in public has been that smokers are in the majority of the population, but that is no longer the case.

ban the flithy habbit now! It doesn't only effect the smokers but effects everyone elses health around them too!

Yeah, I really dislike smoking. It seems like smokers only do it because their addiction forces them to and it's truly unpleasant. I have a few friends that smoke and to me as a non-drinker, waking up with a hangover from breathing in second hand smoke after a night in a pub sat next to them really annoys me (not to mention the fact that as a molecular biologist I actually know what it's doing to me and know that it's having a direct negative effect on all aspects of my physiology, reducing my lifespan and my cognitive and athletic function, both of which I need). I can still smell the smoke on my hair today and had to put clothes to wash that would have been serviceable for another day or two.

I could understand it in a way if it were pleasurable, but I don't even think most smokers really enjoy it, I know a few people who really want to give up but are having trouble shaking it. The entire cigarette industry just seems a joyless parasite hanging on society's shoulders and it's well time we were rid of it.

Hell yeah! Does this include out in the street though or is it just enclosed public spaces?

I'd love for smoking to be banned full stop but that's not going to happen - too much money is made by the government from the sale of cigarettes and it would only go black market like other drugs and still be available anyway. There is an argument aswell that if you're out in the open air who can stop you from smoking? It's a free country and all that - err, well kinda. I imagine it would be very difficult to enforce aswell.

I really hate walking down the street behind someone who is smoking though. I hate the smell of it and getting a faceful if the wind is blowing in a particular direction. I always try to get ahead of them, which is difficult sometimes, but I can hardly expect them to not be able to smoke outside.

It would be nice to be able to go out and not come home stinking, with a sore throat and tight chest. I can see the other side of the argument, that when people go out they want to enjoy themselves, relax, have a drink, a fag, whatever and that they're paying for the priviledge, but if I have to breathe their smoke I'm paying for it too with my health so putting it in an extreme way they're helping to murder me!

Guess I get my own back tho as I drive and I've had that conversation before, that breathing in car fumes does as much damage etc etc. I dunno - something is gonna kill us in this imperfect world we live in, but as it's my current comfort that concerns me, in that second hand smoke gives me a headache and makes me cough and feel sick I say bring on the bans!

I'm all for the ban!! I love going out to pubs, betting shops etc but hate the fact that you become a walking ashtray afterwards. The stench on my clothes makes me wanna puke. How can people say they enjoy a smoke!!?? :confused:

yes I'm all for a total ban, that way every one knows where they stand.

I'm confused.

Does that mean a total ban in all inside public places? Or does it mean you can only smoke in your own home?

How can people say they enjoy a smoke!!?? :confused:

the same way people say they enjoy coffee

i used to be the same when i was younger, mum smoked all the time and i hated it. When i started smoking tho i didnt notice the smell etc etc.

i suppose its the same with all habits. If you havent got the same habit as someone else then you dont know what makes thier habit so appealing.

what are your habits??

Guess I get my own back tho as I drive and I've had that conversation before, that breathing in car fumes does as much damage etc etc.

The difference there is that everybody benefits from the use of motor vehicles - practically nobody would give up their cars or buses or food delivered to local shops - whereas the only benefit from smoking (leaving the economics aside) is the pleasure of a minority, which they'll still be able to enjoy in their own space. At the moment most people are prepared to put up with traffic fumes in exchange for the benefits, whereas that's coming not to be the case for smoking.

Personally I like beer but hate smoke, so the ban can't come soon enough for me. Shouldn't forget that we've already come quite a long way - very few workplaces and (I think) no public transport operators still allow smoking indoors.

shoud be banned in all restaurants,pubs ,clubs & shops & in all work places unless your a farmer etc in the wide open countryside.
and any firm that encourages skivving for people who are addicted the drug should be fined.
non smokers don't get 10 hours a month of free wages, and alcoholics don't get 15 minutes of company approved time to top up on vodka.

Yes a total ban in public places that sell food i do like to see a total ban over, And yes i did use to smoke and im not saying this becuase i use to and now im wanting a ban because i have stoped, but i never did smoke around people who was eating or people who did not smoke when i did smoke its called respect for others.
You can not put a total ban on all public places, i know medowhall have and a few shops but i do not agree that all places should be banned like pubs should have a room were the smokers can enjoy to relax and have a smoke. Smokers need somewere to chill out insted of being thrown outside all the time. I know one cafe in the market that is full of smokers and i use to hate goin in myself when i did smoke and i think that place needs a total ban. So yes not all places to be banned just a few and let smokers smoke if they want too, end of the day people still drive and fueming all the streets so what is a couple of people smoking goin to differ.

I smoke, I'm very considerate with it too. Except I expect to be able to smoke in the street when I feel I want to and i'm comfortable I'm not annoyign anyone else. As for Clubs, pubs well, I don't see the problem with havin Smoking pubs and non smoking pubs. I have the right to chose whether I want to smoke or not, and those who don't want to smoke have the right not to have to breathe my smoke in. Hence, you go to that pub and and I'll go to this one where I can smoke. There can't possibley be an argument with this. Also, alcohol. You can all moan at me and say "but I don't have to breathe in peoples alcohol", well I don't expect to have my head kicked in by a bunch of thuggsih idiots on the way out Yates pubs etc but it happens, and its alochol related. Now we will have dozens of people stood outside pubs throwing cig ends on the floor and in some cases causing hassling, e.g. letching, gobbing off. Just because I smoke doesn't mean I'm the same as every other smoker. Some of us are considaret enough to appreciate that stood in a bus stop full of people smoking is completly out of order, or similar situations.
People at work always complain about the smell when I've been for a cig, that particular person stinks of B.O. Same thing, execpt I'm polite enough not to moan about it. Also, if your walking behind me and I'm smoking, and you catch a whiff, sorry, but your also breathing in exhaust fumes froms cars and industrial buildings nearby. There are more things you cn breath and be damaged by than just smoking, and most people are subjected to them daily, but we aren't bothered about that are we. TV puppets. This was typed quicky, so hope it makes sense.

Yes, smoking and non-smoking pubs is a step in the right direction. When you smoke outside, no offence but you are seriously annoying people. You don't realise how far the smell carries and how physically sick it can make some people feel e.g. me - and this isn't just my peculiarity, though I am particularly adverse to it. Smokers annoy me to the point where I wish homicide did not have negative repercussions. However, catching a whiff of it outside is far more liveable with than sitting next to a chain smoker in a pub or enclosed space.

Personally, I think alcohol is a bad idea too but I haven't ever suffered any direct ill effects from other people drinking it around me, whereas I do on a regular basis from smoking.

Exhaust fumes are also bad, but just because there are other things out there doesn't mitigate the effect of smoke. Breathing car fumes is bad, breathing smoke is bad, breathing both is twice as bad (possibly more - homeostatic mechanisms can compensate for a certain amount of these toxins but as concentration increases you see a tipping point beyond which damage starts to take place, so in terms of the actual damage caused the additive effect may be many times that of car fumes alone).

The fact is, you're seriously and irreversibly damaging yourself (which, I don't care about, to be quite honest) and other people around you - which I do. Some, you will be consigning to a slow, painful and untimely death which they would not have suffered had you not smoked. This is not speculation.

Someone smelling of BO might be bad, but it's not going to make you / everyone else in the room smell, and it's definitely not going to physically harm you. It's just hugely selfish, you're getting pleasure out of something to damage other people - not just physically but in terms of lifestyle - I haven't been to a club for a couple of years, which is partially down to their unpleasant, smoky atmospheres.

the same way people say they enjoy coffee

i used to be the same when i was younger, mum smoked all the time and i hated it. When i started smoking tho i didnt notice the smell etc etc.

i suppose its the same with all habits. If you havent got the same habit as someone else then you dont know what makes thier habit so appealing.

what are your habits??

I've never forced anyone to take a swig of my coffee just because they came into the same room as me :P

I smoke, I'm very considerate with it too. Except I expect to be able to smoke in the street when I feel I want to and i'm comfortable I'm not annoyign anyone else. As for Clubs, pubs well, I don't see the problem with havin Smoking pubs and non smoking pubs. I have the right to chose whether I want to smoke or not, and those who don't want to smoke have the right not to have to breathe my smoke in. Hence, you go to that pub and and I'll go to this one where I can smoke. There can't possibley be an argument with this. Also, alcohol. You can all moan at me and say "but I don't have to breathe in peoples alcohol", well I don't expect to have my head kicked in by a bunch of thuggsih idiots on the way out Yates pubs etc but it happens, and its alochol related. Now we will have dozens of people stood outside pubs throwing cig ends on the floor and in some cases causing hassling, e.g. letching, gobbing off. Just because I smoke doesn't mean I'm the same as every other smoker. Some of us are considaret enough to appreciate that stood in a bus stop full of people smoking is completly out of order, or similar situations.
People at work always complain about the smell when I've been for a cig, that particular person stinks of B.O. Same thing, execpt I'm polite enough not to moan about it. Also, if your walking behind me and I'm smoking, and you catch a whiff, sorry, but your also breathing in exhaust fumes froms cars and industrial buildings nearby. There are more things you cn breath and be damaged by than just smoking, and most people are subjected to them daily, but we aren't bothered about that are we. TV puppets. This was typed quicky, so hope it makes sense.


it does make sense, but I think i can argue with a few of your analogies.

Alcohol related violence, which you equate to passive smoking is already illegal, would you like to be arrested like the thugs for smoking near someone?
The mixture of non smoking/smoking pubs sounds fine, except that the market place is being very slow to provide it. How do you legislate to get a fair proportion of each? I suppose you could hand out smoking licenses along with the alcohol license, you could maintain a fair balance that way.

[QUOTE=garethverdin]QUOTE]

Okay, few points. If your seriously stating that passive smoking from me alone ( a self confessed considerate smoker, who won't smoke aorund people) is goign to outright kill you, then your deluded. Being constantly subjected to second hand smoke kills, not a fraction of a seconds whiff. Also, the person at work who smells of BO, I smoke outside, well away form anyone, thus the smell on my clothes is simply a smell. Both the same, exceppt he doesn't wash and I do, I also eata thousands mints staright after a smoke, put on a nip of aftershave tooo, same thing though, we both smell but I'm polite he's not! My point is, separate smoke from non-smokers. Problems solved. And as for exhaust fumes ect, someone (not sure if it was you) stated that we al benefit from transport, no we don't. Public transport yes, cars no. The effect upon the enviroment from unneedy use of cars is far more threatening to the human race than deaths from smoking.
Also anyone who is deluded about smokers being a burden on the NHS, well your plain wrong. The NHS love smokers, they want more. I'm not going into why(it is obvious though).

What I'm tryin to say is there is room for all, I am very considerate, I don't even smoke in my own house, and others should be considerate too. You don't have to breath my smoke if I'm careful enough and if there are rules in place, and other smokers should be considerate too. I think the arguement is about inconsderate smokers, there should be rules in place to put a halt to them. They do me in too, I hate when a kid sparks a cig on the bus because I know how frustrating it is for everyone else.

[QUOTE=Cyclone]it does make sense, but I think i can argue with a few of your analogies.

Alcohol related violence, which you equate to passive smoking is already illegalQUOTE]
It may be illegal, but if you'v ever wandered down Leeds town at night (the insipartion for the song By Keisers 'I predict a riot") you will soon see that your stand a good chance of been on the end of a boot. Its happened to me
a few times, and belive me I don't go around lookin for trouble.

As an ex-smoker I think it should be banned or at least there should be areas for smokers to go to. I think it is unfare that you should have to breathe in someone elses smoke and u should be able to go for a drink as a non-smoker and not come home stinking of fags. We went to dublin for New Years Eve when I smoked and I didn't mind having to go outside for a smoke in fact it gave u a chance to talk to people who were doing the same. The pubs were still busy but it was nice not to be sitting in a smoky atmosphere.:)

BO is something that should be taken up with the HR department, there's no reason that you should have to put up with it, just like no one else having to put up with the smell of smoke.

Everytime you're exposed to 2nd hand smoke there's a risk that it causes cancer. The risk is cumulative, but why should you even have to be exposed to a single wiff of it?
As for cars, remove private use of the car and the economy would probably collapse. But that's not even the point, just because something bad happens (car pollution) isn't an excuse to let something else happen (the smoking).

Maybe with more consideration it would be a better situation.

Yes, there is a chance that it could outright kill me or anyone who breathes in smoke by deregulation of tumour control mechanisms e.g. p53 and protooncogenes, leading to cancer (yes, even for a whiff - what's a whiff to you is a massive lethal barrage on a cellular level). The chance of this occuring is comparable to winning the lottery and the higher the exposure = the more tickets you have, by a crude analogy - but one ticket can still win the lottery. How many people do you think are exposed to a whiff of your smoke from a lifetime of you smoking while walking through the streets? Assuming the chance of neogenesis occuring on the basis of a single hit of smoke is around 14 million to 1, do you think you'll encounter 14 million people? One cigarette while walking down the high street would probably affect around 20-30 people... maybe 14 million is still a slightly high estimate (and I pulled that out of nowhere anyway, don't think anyone knows the exact risk) but it does give a reasonable chance of you giving someone a potentially fatal illness through your habit.

Everyone will be hit by some sublethal effects:-

There is a very high probability that it will trigger the incorrect apoptotic destruction of some cells in whoever comes into contact with it. There is a further certainty that it will increase the net metabolic output of their bodies (through DNA lesions e.g. caused by benzo[a]pyrene activating the cell cycle checkpoint and DNA repair mechanisms - both energetically costly). High metabolic output is correlated with decreased lifespan as it leaves less free energy for other important but less immediately urgent maintenance of the soma. It is likely to decrease their aerobic capacity, trigger incorrect stimulation of nicotinergic receptors... I can go on and I doubt that many people understand this but put some research into it until you do understand it - I don't know anyone who knows the extent of the effects of smoke who continues to smoke. Essentially, one major effect is that it causes damage to DNA. DNA makes proteins which make your body.

Damage to DNA (genes) -> Malformed proteins -> Malformed bits of you. Energy production systems, structural proteins, signalling mechanisms... anything that goes on in the body, basically, will all be compromised. Cancer is one possible effect of this by damaging proteins involved in the control of normal cell division, but this is a highly regulated system with many failsafes - other genes will be messed up before cancer starts as they're much less well protected. This is why long term smokers have floppy skin etc. - what's going on inside of them is worse. This is why it reduces lifespan, accumulation of DNA errors is one hypothesis for the limit of human lifespan, and I agree that it is likely to be a major factor. Other things e.g. sunlight also damage DNA, but NOT in the same way as smoke! Sunlight causes single strand breaks which are repaired pretty easily, mutagens in smoke grab hold of both strands of large pieces of DNA and break them or malform them, and are much harder to repair.

The mixture of non smoking/smoking pubs sounds fine, except that the market place is being very slow to provide it. How do you legislate to get a fair proportion of each? I suppose you could hand out smoking licenses along with the alcohol license, you could maintain a fair balance that way.

The market place is slow to provide non smoking pubs because to do so would be financial suicide. All these polls we get where some stay at home non smoker goes on about "oh, yes we'd definately go to the pub more often if those nasty smokers weren't there". Well sorry but if the the country is full of people desperate to leave their gin and tonic at home and fill the pubs then the pub industry would have banned smoking years ago.
We may get the odd one or two who would drop in for a sherry before going home but I definately think the 7-8 pinters who put the real money in the pubs till will be driven out.

And if someone can't have a fag down the pub maybe all the anti smokers would like to consider that they'd probably make up for it by smoking at home with the family and kids.

And another thing - this thing about protecting employees in the workplace - what if the barman/barmaid is a smoker as well.

I believe places like the Hillborough Hotel have got it about right. Two distinct area -smoking / non smoking, good ventilation and no smoking anywhere near the bar.

Rant over :rant:

The reason for proposing a ban on smoking in bars is to protect the workforce, and as such I agree with that. There is a proven risk for those who are daily subjected to passive smoking. However, there is no proven risk for it having a detrimental effect in the open air. This is in contrast to traffic fumes which not only affect us on the street, but also infest our homes, hence kids who live or go to school on main roads are highly likely to get asthma.

I'm fine with a ban in bars etc. That makes sense. But to ban it out of doors is not only a little silly in terms of the risk you are hoping to avoid but unfeasible in terms of resourcing the police to carry it out.

BO is something that should be taken up with the HR department, there's no reason that you should have to put up with it, just like no one else having to put up with the smell of smoke.

Everytime you're exposed to 2nd hand smoke there's a risk that it causes cancer. The risk is cumulative, but why should you even have to be exposed to a single wiff of it?
As for cars, remove private use of the car and the economy would probably collapse. But that's not even the point, just because something bad happens (car pollution) isn't an excuse to let something else happen (the smoking).


Yes, fair enough. I see what your saying, "there are kids starvign in England, but thats okay cus its worse in Africa" But thats not my point, I have blatantly not denied your opinions, merely counteracted them with probelms whihc are equally as threatening. Smoking is seen as unneccessary, in my opinion so is personal transport. I don't drive, why should I be subjected ot exhaust fumes, and why should I have a bad back and leg due to been knocked down by a car when i was younger (I know, I know, its besides th epoint, but its not). No, I'm not saying this is worse, but equates to one person doing something they think is fine and another person thinking the opposite. Only smoking is already addressed as a problem, I go out of my way not to make anyone feel uncomfortable when smoking. But ask your average driver about driving, "na its not a problem, don't know what them hippies are on about, pah, environment" I could go on. My points is (provoked, I didn't come here to say this) there are a mulitude of things wrong, harmful etc in the world, except people seem pretty selective about what they think is harmful to them, and selfish. ALso, stereotyping all smokers as selfsih is wrong, you said I'm doing something purposefully and selfishly to hurt others, i'm not. Ask anyone who knows me (i know thats not possible) I don't smoke in front anyone with asking, if in the street I will stand along way from you and I will make sur you won't smell my smoke. Am i being selfish?

Even the best option excludes all outdoor public places so it is never going to be total protection.

Even the best option excludes all outdoor public places so it is never going to be total protection.

Am I on the right thread here? Or is Slim dreaming again??

The market place is slow to provide non smoking pubs because to do so would be financial suicide. All these polls we get where some stay at home non smoker goes on about "oh, yes we'd definately go to the pub more often if those nasty smokers weren't there". Well sorry but if the the country is full of people desperate to leave their gin and tonic at home and fill the pubs then the pub industry would have banned smoking years ago.
We may get the odd one or two who would drop in for a sherry before going home but I definately think the 7-8 pinters who put the real money in the pubs till will be driven out.

And if someone can't have a fag down the pub maybe all the anti smokers would like to consider that they'd probably make up for it by smoking at home with the family and kids.

And another thing - this thing about protecting employees in the workplace - what if the barman/barmaid is a smoker as well.

I believe places like the Hillborough Hotel have got it about right. Two distinct area -smoking / non smoking, good ventilation and no smoking anywhere near the bar.

Rant over :rant:


I know lots of people that like to drink and also don't like to smoke. Weatherspoons banned smoking some time ago, it's yet to go broke, even if it should because it's scummy.
I'm not sure the what if they are a smoker argument is getting at, they certainly aren't all smokers, so what's your point?

I'd be quite happy with well ventilated seperated areas, but it's harder to enfore than a ban is.

Gareth - i wasn't trying to acuse you personally of being selfish, sorry if it came across like that.
You don't counteract an opinion about something being bad by saying that something else is also bad. I agree that car pollution is a problem. As soon as we've resolved the smoking issue we can get right onto the car pollution issue. Of course most private car journeys are used to commute to work, or to travel where public transport is unavailable or unreliable. I'm not sure how you can resolve that.
The hydrogen/electric/hybrid cars are all a step in the right direction, but there's still too much tax to be made from oil at the moment for the goverment to do what it should.

I agree that smoking should be banned in all public places. Just having 'no smoking' areas is not enough. It wouldn't expect smokers not to smoke outside, but inside - should be a total ban. It would certainly help all those wanting to stop but can't if there was a total ban. They wouldn't have an option but to stop.

Gareth - i wasn't trying to acuse you personally of being selfish, sorry if it came across like that.
You don't counteract an opinion about something being bad by saying that something else is also bad. I agree that car pollution is a problem. As soon as we've resolved the smoking issue we can get right onto the car pollution issue. Of course most private car journeys are used to commute to work, or to travel where public transport is unavailable or unreliable. I'm not sure how you can resolve that.
The hydrogen/electric/hybrid cars are all a step in the right direction, but there's still too much tax to be made from oil at the moment for the goverment to do what it should.

Sorry Cyclone, but you've entirely missed my point. I will be quiet now I cam here to complain about my ants in my ant works not working burrowing, but ended up arguing instead!

[QUOTE=taxman
And another thing - this thing about protecting employees in the workplace - what if the barman/barmaid is a smoker as well.

:[/QUOTE]

went to Spankys for a party last month - big sign No Smoking at the bar.
After 1/2 an hour the barmaid stands at the end of the bar & sparks up.What the hell is that about?

I know lots of people that like to drink and also don't like to smoke. Weatherspoons banned smoking some time ago, it's yet to go broke, even if it should because it's scummy.
I'm not sure the what if they are a smoker argument is getting at, they certainly aren't all smokers, so what's your point?

If the demand for a total ban was as popular as the Govt. have us believe then the Drinks industry wouldn't be opposing a total ban and we would have thousands of smoke free pubs everywhere full to the brim. Landlords and publicans and breweries aren't idiots. If money can be made from banning all smoking they'd have done it ages ago.

The point is that the argument about protecting the workers falls if the workers are smokers anyway. In the Hills hotel on Sunday the barstaff had to move into the smoking area for a fag. Same happens at the Cask & Cutler. I don't see how a smoking ban protects them and they don't want one.

If you are a non smoking barperson perhaps the sensible thing would be to apply for jobs in non smoking pubs only. After all you wouldn't expect someone with an aversion to alcohol to apply to work in a pub or someone allergic to dogs to work at a kennel.

If a landlord owns a pub it is their prerogative who they let through the door. It shouldn't be the Government telling them who they can and who they cannot let through their door. If a landlord wants to be totally smoke free so be it. Put a big banner outside saying smoke free. If a landlord chooses to allow smokers onto HIS or HER premises then likewise, put a big banner outside saying smokers welcome.
Whats the problem with that?

went to Spankys for a party last month - big sign No Smoking at the bar.
After 1/2 an hour the barmaid stands at the end of the bar & sparks up.What the hell is that about?

Obviously she doesn't want the government to protect her from secondary smoke

I'd just like to be able to go out to a pub (or a club if the night is going really well) and not come home stinking like an ashtray because the air is full of smoke. :gag:

Why do smokers have such a problem with going outside for a smoke anyway? What's the big deal- it's not going to kill you is it? Get a bit of perspective!

I'd just like to be able to go out to a pub (or a club if the night is going really well) and not come home stinking like an ashtray because the air is full of smoke. :gag:

Everyone should be afforded that preserve, Pauly. I'm a smoker, but only smoke at home or in Barnsley ( compulsory in all pubs !). Nobody should have to breathe in second hand smoke against their wishes. However, I do have reservations with regards to a total ban. Firstly, private clubs are just that, private. If you don't like it, don't join. Secondly, and most importantly, once you start banning things, where does it all end? This Government is hell-bent on destroying all the Civil Liberties we have fought long and had for. As long as workers are protected, and can refuse, without retribution, from having to work in a smoky atmosphere, then I think the nanny state has gone far enough. If the Government were really that sincere, as regards to the health of the nation, the use and purchase of tobacco related products would be outlawed. As always, money comes first.

If the demand for a total ban was as popular as the Govt. have us believe then the Drinks industry wouldn't be opposing a total ban and we would have thousands of smoke free pubs everywhere full to the brim. Landlords and publicans and breweries aren't idiots. If money can be made from banning all smoking they'd have done it ages ago.

The point is that the argument about protecting the workers falls if the workers are smokers anyway. In the Hills hotel on Sunday the barstaff had to move into the smoking area for a fag. Same happens at the Cask & Cutler. I don't see how a smoking ban protects them and they don't want one.

If you are a non smoking barperson perhaps the sensible thing would be to apply for jobs in non smoking pubs only. After all you wouldn't expect someone with an aversion to alcohol to apply to work in a pub or someone allergic to dogs to work at a kennel.

If a landlord owns a pub it is their prerogative who they let through the door. It shouldn't be the Government telling them who they can and who they cannot let through their door. If a landlord wants to be totally smoke free so be it. Put a big banner outside saying smoke free. If a landlord chooses to allow smokers onto HIS or HER premises then likewise, put a big banner outside saying smokers welcome.
Whats the problem with that?


unless you can say for definite that all bar workers are smokers then your argument holds no smoke (more topical than holding water).

And it's not the government saying who can and cannot be let in, it's government saying that since it's a public house and nominally open to anyone, it should be somewhere people can go without having to be assaulted by poisonous gases.

Smoked 40 a day, chain smoked whenever driving. Along with the everpresent smell of sulfite coming from the paper mill I worked for the interior of the car stank like a gas chamber. Friends would suggest Iwent in their car. Fine with me, it saved my gas.
Then the ban, no smoking anywhere, and eventually I thought what the heck, and haven't had one for over three years.
Smoking bans work.

Just had a thought on the car fumes - smoke comparison too. I've never walked in the house and had my parents say 'oh you stink of car fumes'. The negative impact on health might be similar (although I suspect smoke is worse) but smokers make other people smell who don't want to. I've been in a foul mood all day because I keep smelling lingering traces of smoke on my hair.

I don't think the majority of smokers would care about it enough to openly flout the law on it. Half of them seem to be looking for some incentive to quit anyway, some do it just because their friends do or because it's percieved as cool in an immature chavvy mindset. A ban would work and should be implemented.

unless you can say for definite that all bar workers are smokers then your argument holds no smoke (more topical than holding water).

And it's not the government saying who can and cannot be let in, it's government saying that since it's a public house and nominally open to anyone, it should be somewhere people can go without having to be assaulted by poisonous gases.

No I didn't say all bar workers are smokers but its a bit of a daft argument saying the ban is to protect a worker from secondary smoke if they are smokers themselves. Like I say, if theres so many pub landlords rushing to provide smoke free pubs then any non smoking barstaff should have no trouble getting a job in one of these many places.

So whats your problem with choice then, if you don't want to go to a smoking pub go to a non-smoking pub.

If you don't like music you go to a music free pub

If you don't want a pub full of lager drinking chavs then there is choice, you go somewhere else.

Why can't there be choice in this case?

And pubs are not really nominally open to the public. If a landlord says "your barred" then thats it.

I really don't see why you would be so upset that certain people would rather go and drink in a pub open to smokers whilst you go drink somewhere else.

My problem with that is that the choice is currently wetherspoons or nowhere. Otherwise, sure, great. It would mean that smokers would only ever be friends with other smokers but, I guess that increases my chance of meeting intelligent people.

My problem with that is that the choice is currently wetherspoons or nowhere. Otherwise, sure, great. It would mean that smokers would only ever be friends with other smokers but, I guess that increases my chance of meeting intelligent people.

But surely if a smoking ban were so popular there would be loads of smoke free pubs out there? No? Maybe thats because the pubs would lose money because they'd lose custom. If there was such a popular feeling for the total ban why aren't pubs and breweries rushing to profit from non-smoking pubs?

Incidentally - me- none-smoker, friends mixture of both.

Just had a thought on the car fumes - smoke comparison too. I've never walked in the house and had my parents say 'oh you stink of car fumes'. The negative impact on health might be similar (although I suspect smoke is worse) but smokers make other people smell who don't want to. I've been in a foul mood all day because I keep smelling lingering traces of smoke on my hair.

I don't think the majority of smokers would care about it enough to openly flout the law on it. Half of them seem to be looking for some incentive to quit anyway, some do it just because their friends do or because it's percieved as cool in an immature chavvy mindset. A ban would work and should be implemented.

The impact on health from car fumes is much worse. Stand by an urban road for five minutes and you have inhaled the equivalent toxins from around 300 cigarettes. The fumes from cars are heavy gases and linger at street level so you are much more likely to inhale them.

I agree that in an enclosed space smoking is dangerous to those who have to be there - e.g. workers. And there is little they can do about it as they are often low skilled or need part time work, and there is little health & safety protection for such workers. Not many pubs are unionised!

At least the public can vote with their feet to avoid smoky pubs. I've not really got any option if I want to avoid streaming eyes and a wheezing chest in the morning rush hour, thanks to the drivers who in probably about 90% of cases could catch a bus or car share.

No I didn't say all bar workers are smokers but its a bit of a daft argument saying the ban is to protect a worker from secondary smoke if they are smokers themselves. Like I say, if theres so many pub landlords rushing to provide smoke free pubs then any non smoking barstaff should have no trouble getting a job in one of these many places.

So whats your problem with choice then, if you don't want to go to a smoking pub go to a non-smoking pub.

If you don't like music you go to a music free pub

If you don't want a pub full of lager drinking chavs then there is choice, you go somewhere else.

Why can't there be choice in this case?

And pubs are not really nominally open to the public. If a landlord says "your barred" then thats it.

I really don't see why you would be so upset that certain people would rather go and drink in a pub open to smokers whilst you go drink somewhere else.


I don't know whose posts you were reading, I said only a few posts back that a mix of smoking/non smoking would suit me fine. Then I proceded to wonder how you could make it work, issuing a smoking license would seem to be the simplest since alcohol and music licenses are already required.
The problem with the market place is that despite non smokers now making up 60% of the population, and a good proportion of those people saying that they don't like smokey pubs, as long as nearly all good pubs are smoking pubs, the people who want to have a drink have no choice but to go to a smoking pub. Since most decent pubs operate at close to capacity anyway, they have nothing to gain (in terms of people through the door) by going non smoking.

I already tend to go to bars that are less smokey, but it only takes one unpleasant person to sit at the table next to you and you come home stinking of smoke.
It probably says something that I don't actually count as a friend anyone who smokes, but then I tend to hang out with people who are relatively fit and health conscious.

I don't know whose posts you were reading, I said only a few posts back that a mix of smoking/non smoking would suit me fine.

Well thats ok then, I thought you were in favour of a total ban

looks like my local will become a private club

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm

I wonder if the term "public place" extends to beer gardens, logically it should.

Ah well "imagination smoking everybody" :)

Just heard the vote. Total Ban.

Well done to all MP's who voted this one in :thumbsup:
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm)

another victory for the health fascists

watch out drinkers your next:(

Will it apply to the House of Common's Tea Rooms and Subsidised Bars?

Hear hear old chep! *waves paper around like a poncy back bencher*. ;)

Will it apply to the House of Common's Tea Rooms and Subsidised Bars?

dont hold your breath

Will it apply to the House of Common's Tea Rooms and Subsidised Bars?

I couldn't give a monkeys if it is or not in there.

The reason being,I shall not be frequenting!

dont hold your breath

You may need to with all the 'now illegal' smoke that will fill the place. ;)

I don't recall the last time someone got liver cancer by being forced to drink someone else's drink. :roll:

I don't recall the last time someone got liver cancer by being forced to drink someone else's drink. :roll:

no you wont but it wont stop them from trying to ban it

Pauly, it suits you, but what about my cat "Smokey"

Smokey (http://photobucket.com/albums/d65/shoeshine22/?action=view&current=ATT604458.gif)

Well I'll believe that when it happens. :) Until then I'll be enjoying a drink from time to time in the smoke-free atmosphere and going home smelling exactly the same as when I walked out my door.........unless I happen to scoff a doner kebab on the way home of course. ;)

Call the RSPCA!!!! :o

Well I'll believe that when it happens. :) Until then I'll be enjoying a drink from time to time in the smoke-free atmosphere and going home smelling exactly the same as when I walked out my door.........unless I happen to scoff a doner kebab on the way home of course. ;)

With treble Garlic which I personally find is also an offensive odour.

Still it keeps vampires away I suppose.:)

It's only offensive when it comes from someone's mouth the following morning....or when you've eaten so much you start to sweat it out. :gag: :hihi:

When I smell it coming from someone's house as I'm walking down the road it's lush. :D Mmmmm!!!! :P

It's only offensive when it comes from someone's mouth the following morning....or when you've eaten so much you start to sweat it out. :gag: :hihi:

When I smell it coming from someone's house as I'm walking down the road it's lush. :D Mmmmm!!!! :P

The sense of smell is a subjective thing Pauly.

What suits one doesn't suit another necessarily. I ask not that garlic be banned.........:)

I am a smoker a considerate smoker I only smoke outside even when I am at home I think a total ban is ludicrous what with this & the ID cards its big
brother what next alcohol, cars, banning ugly men/women in public I
thought this was supposed to be a free country
Soon we will be all underground smoking & drinking huddled in little groups
they will ban cartoons next then newspapers then the INTERNET because somebody somewhere says its bad for our health where will it stop & what about all the tax the government gets from smoking will the none smokers be happy when their taxes go through the roof to make up for the loss of revenue
Enough is enough leave our country as it should be with the people deciding for themselves not some namby pambies deciding for us
Come the revolution brothers & sisters I will be in the front line smoking & drinking & loving but sticking up for the right to do whatever I want to do in
my own country:rant:

I am a smoker a considerate smoker I only smoke outside even when I am at home I think a total ban is ludicrous what with this & the ID cards its big
brother what next alcohol, cars, banning ugly men/women in public I
thought this was supposed to be a free country
Soon we will be all underground smoking & drinking huddled in little groups
they will ban cartoons next then newspapers then the INTERNET because somebody somewhere says its bad for our health where will it stop & what about all the tax the government gets from smoking will the none smokers be happy when their taxes go through the roof to make up for the loss of revenue
Enough is enough leave our country as it should be with the people deciding for themselves not some namby pambies deciding for us
Come the revolution brothers & sisters I will be in the front line smoking & drinking & loving but sticking up for the right to do whatever I want to do in
my own country:rant:

That's like saying "I have the right to be a hazard to other people's health and kill them slowly over a number of years if I choose to." Where's the logic in that? :roll:

I am a smoker a considerate smoker I only smoke outside even when I am at home I think a total ban is ludicrous what with this & the ID cards its big
brother what next alcohol, cars, banning ugly men/women in public I
thought this was supposed to be a free country

Come the revolution brothers & sisters I will be in the front line smoking & drinking & loving but sticking up for the right to do whatever I want to do in
my own country:rant:

I'm all for banning ugly men/women in public, Appolo :)

I will join your march if you promise not to smoke, drink and particularly the "loving" bit all at the same time.

It could take all day to march down The Wicker otherwise. :thumbsup:

That's like saying "I have the right to be a hazard to other people's health and kill them slowly over a number of years if I choose to." Where's the logic in that? :roll:

the same logic of a government that gets you hooked on fags puts the price through the roof & gets nearlly all the cost of a packet of fags off us in tax
the same logic etc that gets you to buy 1 or 2 cars get hooked then puts the
petrol up then the road tax up no logic really just a rant

the same logic of a government that gets you hooked on fags puts the price through the roof & gets nearlly all the cost of a packet of fags off us in tax
the same logic etc that gets you to buy 1 or 2 cars get hooked then puts the
petrol up then the road tax up no logic really just a rant

I'm happy to smoke with you anytime...............:thumbsup:

yes ban it please, i hate it, smells horrible on your clothes.

I'm happy to smoke with you anytime...............:thumbsup:

Nothing like a Will's Whiff is there Cloudy:thumbsup:

the same logic of a government that gets you hooked on fags

I don't remember them trying to get me hooked on fags. :suspect:

I seem to remember our illustrious representatives in the House of Commons passed legislation on a free vote to ban fox hunting but nobody seems to have taken a blind bit of notice of that.

This vote is probably just a bit of revenge cos everybody ignored them last time :hihi:

Nothing like a Will's Whiff is there Cloudy:thumbsup:

I much prefer a whiff of Will darling...............:D

Shakespeare wrote Hamlet so the music could be used to promote small cigars.

Look how well little Billy Shakespeare did for the literary world :)

Oh, fantastic. Well, I didn't expect that to happen but it's going to improve my life / general temperament no end, well done government.

I doubt they'll go after drinking because, essentially, people quite like that on the whole. As you can see, the majority of people don't like smoking. And I'm sorry but they're not comparable - this isn't a victory for 'health fascists' unless you define one as someone who would rather not smell funny and possibly die so you can get a quick fix.

Oh, fantastic. Well, I didn't expect that to happen but it's going to improve my life / general temperament no end, well done government.

I doubt they'll go after drinking because, essentially, people quite like that on the whole. As you can see, the majority of people don't like smoking. And I'm sorry but they're not comparable - this isn't a victory for 'health fascists' unless you define one as someone who would rather not smell funny and possibly die so you can get a quick fix.

Ah, another victim of Blair's Spin.

Don't worry, they will legalise cannabis soon to get the taxes somehow, and then see what your clothes smell like.:thumbsup:

Ah, another victim of Blair's Spin.

Don't worry, they will legalise cannabis soon to get the taxes somehow, and then see what your clothes smell like.:thumbsup:

As I said earlier, if this government were really concerned about the health of the nation, they would ban the use of and sale of all tobacco products. I wonder why not?:loopy:

I think its all gone a bit over the top.... there would be nothing wrong with having segregated areas for smokers with the proper extraction systems installed and whilst the regulations are in place now to discriminate and employ non smokers then the legislation should include that a company has a right to employ "smokers only" to work in these areas.... or is that too pc as it still infringes on peoples rights to have a pint and enjoy a smoke.

I am a heavy smoker and I defend my right to smoke what I want, where I want. If your clothes smell, so what, wash them.

I think its all gone a bit over the top.... there would be nothing wrong with having segregated areas for smokers with the proper extraction systems installed and whilst the regulations are in place now to discriminate and employ non smokers then the legislation should include that a company has a right to employ "smokers only" to work in these areas.... or is that too pc as it still infringes on peoples rights to have a pint and enjoy a smoke.

Would this have anything to do with changing the Pension Age to 70 perhaps, or am I being totally paranoid? Lots of extra units of productivity for Big Business, who don't want you after 45 anyway. :confused:

Please don't answer that question......... I can pay professionals to analyse me... well, on the NHS of course. with a 20 year waiting time :)

Would this have anything to do with changing the Pension Age to 70 perhaps, or am I being totally paranoid? Lots of extra units of productivity for Big Business, who don't want you after 45 anyway. :confused:

Please don't answer that question......... I can pay professionals to analyse me... well, on the NHS of course. with a 20 year waiting time :)

Perplexed. :help: :confused:

Yes fantastic news, particularly for bar staff throughout the country who won't have to endure everybody's second-hand smoke and especially so for the thousands of them that won't have bars to go and work in, if the Irish experience is anything to go by. Never mind they can all go and get jobs in call-centres instead, if they don't mind commuting to Bombay!

I doubt they'll go after drinking because, essentially, people quite like that on the whole.

Oh I wish I could share your confidence! The anti-smoking lobby has already won its day in the US and now has started its next battle over there on 'the demon drink'. Be assured phrases like 'binge drinking' have been invented for a purpose- the assault on the culture of drinking is well and truly under way: just read future copies of the Lancet and BMJ as the litmus test of what they will try to legislate next.:(

Perplexed. :help: :confused:

Not for the first time this week Jake.

Smoking does the Smoker harm. That is a fact.

Secondary smoking does harm. That is pure spin and totally unproven.

Smoking puts hundreds of millions of dosh into the Treasury. That is fact.

The NHS spends some of those millions of dosh treating smokers. That is fact, but not all of the dosh by any means.

Stop all smoking and ban tobacco per se. The Government have to make up the losses from somewhere else. That is fact.

Where do you get it from? Legalise Pot, take it off the criminals and sell it over the counter, with a nice tax applied and thus reduce the Crime Figures.
You no longer have to spend any money treating the self-inflicted smoker's illnesses. Dosh saved.

Everyone lives a lot longer, so put the retirement age up to 70, cos Govn't have spent the National Insurance received, for Pensions on stupid things before They got the dosh.

Net result...lots of extra workers over 45 at B & Q for minimum wage till they're 70, Budgets Balanced in the NHS,....and everyone high as a kite all day.

Are you still confused

smoking should be banned completely in my opinion.
"big tobacco" have been making money out of poisoning and killing the populace for far too long already.
it seems almost ridiculous in this day and age that people still enjoy inhaling smoke from a burning plant.

Not for the first time this week Jake.

Smoking does the Smoker harm. That is a fact.

Secondary smoking does harm. That is pure spin and totally unproven.

Smoking puts hundreds of millions of dosh into the Treasury. That is fact.

The NHS spends some of those millions of dosh treating smokers. That is fact, but not all of the dosh by any means.

Stop all smoking and ban tobacco per se. The Government have to make up the losses from somewhere else. That is fact.

Where do you get it from? Legalise Pot, take it off the criminals and sell it over the counter, with a nice tax applied and thus reduce the Crime Figures.
You no longer have to spend any money treating the self-inflicted smoker's illnesses. Dosh saved.

Everyone lives a lot longer, so put the retirement age up to 70, cos Govn't have spent the National Insurance received, for Pensions on stupid things before They got the dosh.

Net result...lots of extra workers over 45 at B & Q for minimum wage till they're 70, Budgets Balanced in the NHS,....and everyone high as a kite all day.

Are you still confused

Think you are somewhat.... for one I don't agree with drugs and that is a different topic altogether.

I was dealing with smoking. The facts you mention have been around a lot longer than you and my point is why should anyone be able to criminalise a legal form of legal tobacco smoking at a whim because it suits some.... the fact that provisions could be made for smokers seems to have gone out of the window.... I understand very well that extraction systems are more than capable of dealing with a smokey environment and my point was, why not make these areas accessible apart from non smokers.

Why do you keep going off topic.... this is not about employing over 45's.... this is about smoking as it has always been and are some people not ready for the change. It is being foisted on them... yeah ban tobacco... ban heroin as well.

Are you any more aware? :D

Think you are somewhat.... for one I don't agree with drugs and that is a different topic altogether.

I was dealing with smoking. The facts you mention have been around a lot longer than you and my point is why should anyone be able to criminalise a legal form of legal tobacco smoking at a whim because it suits some.... the fact that provisions could be made for smokers seems to have gone out of the window.... I understand very well that extraction systems are more than capable of dealing with a smokey environment and my point was, why not make these areas accessible apart from non smokers.

Why do you keep going off topic.... this is not about employing over 45's.... this is about smoking as it has always been and are some people not ready for the change. It is being foisted on them... yeah ban tobacco... ban heroin as well.

Are you any more aware? :D

No, I am just a silly sod sometimes, but I got your attention, didn't I ?:thumbsup:

Whats wrong with giving people the choice - go to a smoking- or non-smoking pub or area? Or having a good ventilation system? Since they stopped smoking on planes, the air has actually become less clean, as they filter it less, so the air is actually worse than when they allowed smoking!!!!

Besides, people have already found ways round the smoking ban in Dublin anyway, so I don't see how it is going to solve the 'problem'. As for protecting the public from second han smoke - its in the home where non-smokers are most vulnerable, and the law can't reach what happens there.

I think the Government are wasting too much time and money trying to control us (ID cards and smoking bans) when its not in their remit, and there is much more important stuff for them to resolve - e.g. pensions crisis, NHS postcode lottery etc. And more importantly, they have gone against their maifesto promises of VOLUNTARY ID cards, and PARTIAL smoking bans. They are the 'promises' they got elected on, so if they are going to go against it, they need to ask the electorate - not make decisions based on a few hundred people in the Commons.

Ok, rant over......for now!!!!

Whats wrong with giving people the choice - go to a smoking- or non-smoking pub or area? Or having a good ventilation system? Since they stopped smoking on planes, the air has actually become less clean, as they filter it less, so the air is actually worse than when they allowed smoking!!!!

Besides, people have already found ways round the smoking ban in Dublin anyway, so I don't see how it is going to solve the 'problem'. As for protecting the public from second han smoke - its in the home where non-smokers are most vulnerable, and the law can't reach what happens there.

I think the Government are wasting too much time and money trying to control us (ID cards and smoking bans) when its not in their remit, and there is much more important stuff for them to resolve - e.g. pensions crisis, NHS postcode lottery etc. And more importantly, they have gone against their maifesto promises of VOLUNTARY ID cards, and PARTIAL smoking bans. They are the 'promises' they got elected on, so if they are going to go against it, they need to ask the electorate - not make decisions based on a few hundred people in the Commons.

Ok, rant over......for now!!!!

I agree with all you say, but when a Government gets desperate to show it can be firm on policy when it is perceived as an abject failure by most of the Electorate, it has to assert it's authority using the "Big Bang" Theory.

Divide and Conquer is an age-old way of doing that.

Set up the differences in people, put propoganda in to stir up one half of the population, light the blue touch paper ............. and sit back and enjoy.

Totalitarian governments have honed this in the past to a Fine Art.

Absolutely agree Shoeshine !
Despite the countless problems in the U.K and the apparent inability of the government to do anything about them , the one thing they've managed to do is to stir up an unnatural hatred about smoking .
They had an easy job though ; any nation that gets millions of people to watch Big Brother and soaps can be persuaded to do anything .

Absolutely agree Shoeshine !
Despite the countless problems in the U.K and the apparent inability of the government to do anything about them , the one thing they've managed to do is to stir up an unnatural hatred about smoking .
They had an easy job though ; any nation that gets millions of people to watch Big Brother and soaps can be persuaded to do anything .

Smokers are just normal people who have gone through the eons with all the posters, advertising and hype from such like Hollywood Icons and their peers to start the habit in the first place.

It is not so easy for some people to kick the habit just because a few select in parliament tell them they should.... why are the middle aged average liberal tree huggers once again winning the debate.... fine, I agree in not forcing smoke down someones throat who doesn't smoke but it is gonna be fact that you can not have a smoking only pub now.... where all will be non smoking.... where is the fair choice in that?.... A poster made a fair comment before about binge drinking and the slippery slope that leads us on to.... do we ration it in the future or simply start the same campaign on alcohol and where are these policies coming from initially? what is next.... shall we outlaw sun tan parlours as they are proven with over use to cause skin cancer.... there will always be something up for debate and why do women not cover up.... this is the slippery slope. Freedom and freedom of choice.... my sentiments are.... Smokers pubs.... Non smokers pubs, if any one doesn't like that, I suggest you put it in your pipe and smoke it. :D

Does this mean Police will be arresting/fining smokers caught?

I'm off behind the bike sheds. . .

the false analogy comparing smoking to binge drinking keeps coming up. I've never forced any alcohol down someone elses throat just because they happened to sit near me in a pub, nor does using a suntan bed (as in the last post) spray uv rays randomly into strangers. If either were true then there would be a good argument for changes.

Does this mean Police will be arresting/fining smokers caught?

I'm off behind the bike sheds. . .


i think it will be like the street wardens who will be doing it armed with video cameras and a air freshner

either that or they will have a shop a smoker helpline:rolleyes:

Against the ban?

Check this out:

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page1.asp

60 per day man, and un-changeable. I stopped going to Pubs a long time ago. Danger zones - yes! Full of idiots and often tanked up hooligans. Stopped going to restaurants, I can cook better and cheaper at home. Stopped going out in fact, which is what this Nanny State government would seem to prefer.
Next?? - - My home is an enclosed semi public place! Visited by various "Employees"? of delivery companies, council officials (Un-invited) and the like.
It still is a smoke free zone. I will offer a fag to anyone! For how long though??

Excellent stuff! At last this government has taken a great setp forward!

mixed reactions coming I suspect!!! Does not make any difference to me one way or the other....

Yup! at last we can sit in a pub without breathing someones smoke, smelling, and having streaming eyes!!

I agree with all you say, but when a Government gets desperate to show it can be firm on policy when it is perceived as an abject failure by most of the Electorate, it has to assert it's authority using the "Big Bang" Theory.


Sorry shoeshine but this wasn't govt. being firm on policy. This was govt. abandoning it's declared policy to avoid another certain humiliating defeat in the commons. Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt voted against the own legislation .:D

Mod: Threads Merged. Please remember to search before starting a new thread.

I for one welcome the total ban,as some will know I work the doors and to be honest I absolutly stink when the shift finishes.
This will protect people like me and the bar staff and I think it was certainly needed.

Passive smoking does harm people, possibly more than the person smoking it as they're behind a nice filter. This is proven and not spin.

I'm not a victim of Blair's Spin, I'm quite capable of forming my own views based on my own experiences and the primary research literature. Which I doubt you've ever read, so in fact you're far more affected by the pseudo-scientific tat they dish out in newspapers etc.

They might try to reduce binge drinking but I'll give you ten to one they won't ban alcohol all together. Not that I'll actually care if they do as I don't drink. If they legalise cannabis this would be an incredibly hypocritical move after banning smoking though - not one I'd put past New Labour but I'm really hoping that doesn't happen, and I think chances are it probably won't... but I'll concede the possibility. I applaud this particular move but the government in general is a bit worrying lately, ID cards being the single most ridiculous concept I've ever heard.

Just to quickly & quietly mention that is anyone wants help with stopping smoking, drop me a pm or email.

Ta.

Paul Bell (DHP DCMT)
www.sheffield-hypnotherapy.co.uk
sheffieldtherapy@hotmail.co.uk

a legalisation of canabis would presumably still be bound by the restrictions on smoking in public, so it wouldn't be hypocritical at all.

smoking should be banned completely in my opinion.
"big tobacco" have been making money out of poisoning and killing the populace for far too long already.
it seems almost ridiculous in this day and age that people still enjoy inhaling smoke from a burning plant.

If you banned smoking altogether where would Gordon Brown find the £12 billion pounds that tobacco revenues put in his kitty every year ? Not from the costs to the NHS of smoking related diseases - that is estimated at £2 billion, and in many cases smoking is no more than an aggravation to an underlying disease that would have occurred anyway.

And if you ban smoking on it's potential to kill people why stop there ?- obesity is fast becoming as significant a cause of premature death as smoking, so let's ban all the foods that cause obesity.

Thousands of people sit in traffic jams every day inhaling exhaust fumes for long periods. Are these fumes any less dangerous than tobacco smoke ? The long-term effects haven't been properly investigated and I doubt they will be, because of the huge profits made by govts. and oil comanies from our addiction to motor transport.

Banning things you don't approve of is the thin end of a very thick wedge.

no one has suggested that smoking should be banned altogether, everyone should have the choice to kill themselves however they wish. What they shouldn't be able to do is inflict that on anyone else.

Finally, I'll be able to walk down The Moor, and not have to breathe in the second hand smoke of my fellow citizens - especially on a cold day, when the smoke drifts from one end of The Moor t'other :gag:

Yes folks, the regeneration of Sheffield City Centre continues :clap:

Furthermore, I'll be able to wait at a bus stop in the rain, and not have to breathe in the carcinogens pumped into the local atmosphere by selfish smokers who are quite prepared to kill themselves, and others, by smoking, yet, bless their little hearts, are afraid of getting wet.

Aw diddums :sad:

Fellow Sheffielders

As much as I'd like a total ban on smoking, this would present its own problems:

1) As Greybeard says, tobacco taxes raise a huge amount of revenue
2) Tobacco companies would merely promote their products overseas even more aggressively than they do now, in order to make up for lost revenue (damn those pesky shareholders)

I was surprised that the Angel of Death, Dr John Reid (formerly Angel of Mercy, Dr John Reid) called smoking a 'working class pleasure' when it kills far more people in lower social classes than any other.

As I said earlier, if this government were really concerned about the health of the nation, they would ban the use of and sale of all tobacco products. I wonder why not?:loopy:
I read yesterday that HMG expects 600,000 people to give it up as a result. I guess it's softly softly rather than just an outright ban.

I'm not sure if you could even legally introduce an outright ban under todays combined UK and European laws.

Finally, I'll be able to walk down The Moor, and not have to breathe in the second hand smoke of my fellow citizens - especially on a cold day, when the smoke drifts from one end of The Moor t'other :gag:

Yes folks, the regeneration of Sheffield City Centre continues :clap:

Furthermore, I'll be able to wait at a bus stop in the rain, and not have to breathe in the carcinogens pumped into the local atmosphere by selfish smokers who are quite prepared to kill themselves, and others, by smoking, yet, bless their little hearts, are afraid of getting wet.

Aw diddums :sad:

Actually, the smoke outdoors (around doors?) may increase for a time, until resourceful smokers find places where they can lurk and smoke, and you will still be able to smoke in bus shelters as they are not 'indoors'. That's one way the ban is got around in Ireland. Pubs with the space have built what are effectively extra rooms - they either simply leave one side partially open or have the 'roof' of the smoking shelter just a few inches away from the roof of the actual pub. The crucial point is that it does not have a door. This means they have effectively made a smoking room, but it is legally 'outdoors'.

I'm interested to see what will happen here with those pubs/clubs who do not have the space for that kind of facility. Apparently in Ireland a lot of such little pubs have gone out of business. Here we may see the closure of those small traditional pubs, such as the 'front-room' pubs of Walkley which don't have beer gardens. Large suburban and rural pubs will no doubt see a big increase and change in clientele as they have the space for smoking shelters.

Interestingly Wetherspoons lost a lot of business when they went smoke free.

I'm also still interested to see what will happen with nightclubs as one third of all 20-24 year olds smoke.

The other thing which has happened in Irish pubs is that smokers are simply allowed to go behind the bar and into the landlord's private space to smoke. And after closing time all the ashtrays come out anyway for the stay behind.

no one has suggested that smoking should be banned altogether

I was replying to misterseven who did suggest it - "smoking should be banned completely in my opinion" :)

Finally, I'll be able to walk down The Moor, and not have to breathe in the second hand smoke of my fellow citizens - especially on a cold day, when the smoke drifts from one end of The Moor t'other :gag:

Yes folks, the regeneration of Sheffield City Centre continues :clap:

Furthermore, I'll be able to wait at a bus stop in the rain, and not have to breathe in the carcinogens pumped into the local atmosphere by selfish smokers who are quite prepared to kill themselves, and others, by smoking, yet, bless their little hearts, are afraid of getting wet.

Aw diddums :sad:

it's a total ban indoors, not outdoors.

I am a smoker, but I support a partial ban. I would've liked to have seen landlords given some leeway to decide their clients best wishes. I know several pubs where everyone smokes (literally) and I think it will harm their trade.

Overall, I suppose it's a good thing really, as it will at least protect staff in clubs, and prevent those who smoke as a social thing from smoking as much, and will get more people on the streets at night rather than crammed into buildings...

Could create a problem with litter perhaps? Will venue owners take responsibility for cleaning up their streets??

I hate going to the Leadmill and people smoking on the dancefloor and wafting it into your top aimlessly. Also the stench in your hair the next morning. Eurgh.

I've also been a non smoker so i appreciate it must be v difficult to give up and i feel for the 50+ generation who all did it and can't give up.
However from my age group onwards it has not been a necessary thing to do so i don't understand why people start doing it??

it's a total ban indoors, not outdoors.

So smokers still have the right to offend my sense of smell when I'm out walking?

Nice one, Mr Blair :roll:

Well I stopped smoking over a year ago to save money, although I welcome a ban on smoking in some venues, what I will not embrace is the fact the the idiot politicians seem to daily sit on their fat arses voting on topics that directly influence their constituents without consulting them first.

I thought we lived in a democracy? Am I Wrong? When was I consulted in this vote?

Also, do the Govt' fail to realise how much money smoking puts into their coffers (no pun intended) and how much the tobacco companies pile into the econmy each year?

What are they going to ban next? Alcohol? Sex?

I think they should ban people with lightweight jobs......such as politicians

Bunch of incompetant w*****rs

I thought we lived in a democracy? Am I Wrong? When was I consulted in this vote?

We live in a bearaucracy ;)

(Did I spell that right?)

Nice to see you back Abdul. Have you been away?

RazorSharp - did you email, fax, write too or call your MP? Or do you expect them to ask everyone in their constituency on every issue that comes up?

If you have strong feelings then make the effort to contact them, rather than doing nothing and bitching afterwards that they didn't ask you.

RazorSharp - did you email, fax, write too or call your MP? Or do you expect them to ask everyone in their constituency on every issue that comes up?

If you have strong feelings then make the effort to contact them, rather than doing nothing and bitching afterwards that they didn't ask you.

I actually saw my politicain a few weeks ago and the smoking issue did come up. She had already made her mind up and knew what she would vote 'if' the vote came forward.

So in answer to your questions, 1) yes i did and 2) I did and got know where.

Whats your excuse? I suggest you fall in the "can't be arsed" camp

...do you expect them to ask everyone in their constituency on every issue that comes up?

Er... yes? It is a democracy. If the issue is one which has a direct and strong impact on the lives of all your constituents, I would fully desire to be consulted.

And it would take, what, 10 minutes? to do a text poll of everyone in the country these days.

Not enough consultation is the cause of most disatrous political decisions (mentioning no specifics but you all know what I'm referring to)

Nice to see you back Abdul. Have you been away?

No, just been busy at work and playing Burnout Revenge on the PS2 :clap:

Burnout Revenge on the PS2 :clap:

LOL! I know that feeling!!

BYE BYE Freedom!

F-U Labour Government. Time to kick em out.

I actually saw my politicain a few weeks ago and the smoking issue did come up. She had already made her mind up and knew what she would vote 'if' the vote came forward.

So in answer to your questions, 1) yes i did and 2) I did and got know where.

Whats your excuse? I suggest you fall in the "can't be arsed" camp

Why do I need an excuse, i'm happy with the decision, so clearly my input wasn't needed.

Dan, I don't think you really have much understanding of how this democracy works. If you have a strong feeling on something then make sure they know, don't wait for them to ask you. It costs very little for you to email your mp, it would cost quite a lot for them to text every person they represent. not to mention being very inefficient as most people won't care and thus won't reply.

[QUOTE=Cyclone]Why do I need an excuse, i'm happy with the decision, so clearly my input wasn't needed.

QUOTE]

I'm not against stopping smoking, I just think that the Govt vote on issues without proper consultation.

When they vote on somthing that puts your fire out Cyclone I'm sure we'll all be in full support of your rants .

Dan, I don't think you really have much understanding of how this democracy works. If you have a strong feeling on something then make sure they know, don't wait for them to ask you. It costs very little for you to email your mp, it would cost quite a lot for them to text every person they represent. not to mention being very inefficient as most people won't care and thus won't reply.

Oh I assure you I have let my views on this particular subject be known several times! My difficulty is probably down to the fact i did not vote for the people in parliament at present... and I don't see that it would be so hard to put it to a national vote.

If I feel strongly enough about an upcoming vote then I will contact my MP and make my feelings known, at least then I can complain that they didn't listen, rather than complaining that they didn't personally pop in and ask me what I thought over a cup of tea :P

I probably should have written to my mp over the id card debate, but i'll just settle for burning it when i get one after renewing my passport.

Oh I assure you I have let my views on this particular subject be known several times! My difficulty is probably down to the fact i did not vote for the people in parliament at present... and I don't see that it would be so hard to put it to a national vote.

and how many issues then should go to a national vote.

Maybe a vote on income tax?

And a vote on pensions?

Oh dear, how do we then reconcile those two decisions, raising pension payments whilst reducing income tax, lucky that the people voting don't need to implement it then.

Anyway, more people don't smoke than do, and in every poll on the forum banning smoking within pubs has come out on top, so you'd still not be happy.

If I feel strongly enough about an upcoming vote then I will contact my MP and make my feelings known, at least then I can complain that they didn't listen, rather than complaining that they didn't personally pop in and ask me what I thought over a cup of tea :P

I probably should have written to my mp over the id card debate, but i'll just settle for burning it when i get one after renewing my passport.


And what will you do if they vote without informing you of the upcoming vote? do you have a mole who informs you of all the private members bills currently going through?.

And what about our health secretary that promised not to blanket ban smoking and did a last minute u turn when the vote came up. Can you trust your local MP?

Also I would suggest that you don't burn your ID card once you've used it to gain a passport because your obviously unaware that you will eventually need it when you attend hospital or when the police pull you over, or you get stopped at customs... I could go on (and usually do) It will also no doubt cost you to replace it when you need it in the future !! Think On :thumbsup:

and how many issues then should go to a national vote.

Maybe a vote on income tax?

And a vote on pensions?

Oh dear, how do we then reconcile those two decisions, raising pension payments whilst reducing income tax, lucky that the people voting don't need to implement it then.


Easily. Reduce the war budget! ;)
Equally I don't mind them increasing income tax.


Anyway, more people don't smoke than do, and in every poll on the forum banning smoking within pubs has come out on top, so you'd still not be happy.

Actually, as I said earlier, I support a ban. Just would've liked to have seen some control left to the owner of the building. It is theirs after all

Why do I need an excuse, i'm happy with the decision, so clearly my input wasn't needed.

Dan, I don't think you really have much understanding of how this democracy works. If you have a strong feeling on something then make sure they know, don't wait for them to ask you. It costs very little for you to email your mp, it would cost quite a lot for them to text every person they represent. not to mention being very inefficient as most people won't care and thus won't reply.

Must have come as a shock when, after not contacting your MP, the vote went against your views regarding the Identity Card Legislation.

Given you declare "I will burn my I/D Card" upon receiving your Passport with it..........I take it you would approve if we all "Light Up" anywhere when the Smoking Ban comes in?

What is good enough for one, is good enough for another. :thumbsup:

Given you declare "I will burn my I/D Card" upon receiving your Passport with it...

Yes we wouldn't want to breathe your smoke now, would we Cyclone? :P

Lets have a look at what the Govt have done for the UK over the past few years, off the top of my head

1) banned the LEGAL ownership of handguns (Hmm, that's been worth it, 2 female PC's shot one killed)
2) decreased the age of consent for homosexual men. (great news for 80's rock stars)
3) banned fox hunting (that buggered my weekends up)
4) Blanket ban on smoking in public (bring on the smoking police)
5) Sent our boys to an illegal war (how much has that cost?)
6) increased public debt (but we're in good shape)
7) increased taxes (but this year in line with inflation, great !)
8) Lied (I'd be upset if they didn't)

ANy one want to continue?


How long has Labour been my voice? No thanks !!!!

Well, I've been reading this thread with interest as I'm now on the other side from old posts I have argued in, in the past!
I quit smoking over 9 months ago now, I would say that I used to argue I was a considerate smoker, but in hindsight there's no such thing really! I see people who smoke trying to be considerate by wafting smoke away so not to blow it in my face, but the smoke just hangs in the atmosphere in the room so I'm breathing it in anyway! I have to say, I really really notice how foul it smells now and I'm quite ashamed I used to smell like that, when someone sits next to me on the bus, in the lifts at work when a smoker has just used it (!! It lingers!), in the street (yes wide open spaces), and obviously in pubs. I don't want to become an annoying ex-smoker and preach, so I don't. I used to smoke very heavily, especially when out in the pubs/clubs. I'm now seeing it from the other side and I go home and wake up with a sore chest and feel like I've smoked 40 fags the night before (I know what that used to feel like), when I haven't touched one. That is the effect of passive smoking, plain and simple. Yes, I can wash my clothes, yes I can wash my hair..my coat, that's a bit more annoying as not so easy to wash. But should I have to? Good question.

Do I want a ban? Mixed thoughts, I do believe in the right to choose, I don't like prohibition, right to choose works both ways, and at the moment my only choice is to not go out to avoid it if I don't like it, where's my right to choose there? (apart from Wetherspoons which I don't like as a pub). Of course I don't stay in, and I go out with my friends who smoke and I don't moan, I get on with it, but I have to say, it would be nice to not have to sit in the smoke breathing it in anymore. I still think better smoking rooms would be a good compromise though, with proper ventilation so smokers can still smoke, and at least that would stop the fag butts building up outside. I don't think this ban will stop most of my smoker friends from going out though because there's more of us non-smokers who will still be out having fun. They'll soon get used to nipping outside I guess. I don't think it will necessarily force people to give up. You've got to want to.

As for current smokers going on about nanny state and banning is wrong, it is being done for health reasons, to protect non-smokers. Just like drink driving was banned to stop innocent people from being killed. Things do get put in place for out protection.

I actually saw my politicain a few weeks ago and the smoking issue did come up. She had already made her mind up and knew what she would vote 'if' the vote came forward.

So in answer to your questions, 1) yes i did and 2) I did and got know where.




but the guy who saw her after you will think she's marvellous,if he wanted the opposite to you that is. politicians can only have one vote, therefore she either pleases you or the other guy.

a politician has today condemned the ban, because the children of smokers will have to put up with them smoking at home more often.

talk about passing on responsibility. its alright to kill my child by bringing the smoke in public,but its my fault that an 80 a dayer kills their own offspring.

And what will you do if they vote without informing you of the upcoming vote? do you have a mole who informs you of all the private members bills currently going through?.

And what about our health secretary that promised not to blanket ban smoking and did a last minute u turn when the vote came up. Can you trust your local MP?

Also I would suggest that you don't burn your ID card once you've used it to gain a passport because your obviously unaware that you will eventually need it when you attend hospital or when the police pull you over, or you get stopped at customs... I could go on (and usually do) It will also no doubt cost you to replace it when you need it in the future !! Think On :thumbsup:


that'll be a shame for the people with no passport then won't it, since the id card will only be issued when a passport is applied for.

The trustworthyness of politicians is a completely seperate issue really, and I doubt I disagree with you on it.

Excellent post there, Foxxx - that's exactly how I feel about friends who smoke. And the analogy with drink-driving is also very good - in some 70s sitcoms drink-driving is treated as a joke, which shows that it must have been more or less acceptable then for a big percentage of people. Attitudes can change fairly quickly.

By the way, I can't believe that smokers will abandon the pubs they've been going to for years, or drastically change their social habits, just because they'll have to step outside for a few minutes to have a fag.

100% Ban!:thumbsup:
Nobody has the right to make someone inhale their filth.... Ban Smoking in pubs....

a politician has today condemned the ban, because the children of smokers will have to put up with them smoking at home more often.

Children being exposed to passive smoking is a horrible thing; not only are the kids exposed to a greater risk of asthma etc, but they're usually from poorer backgrounds where parents will spend more on tobacco and alcohol than on bringing up their children safely (a double whammy) and will be more likely to smoke themselves, continuing the vicious circle :(

By the way, I can't believe that smokers will abandon the pubs they've been going to for years, or drastically change their social habits, just because they'll have to step outside for a few minutes to have a fag.

As shown by what's happened in Ireland, it will very much depend on the type of pub whether it suffers or not. Those with no outdoor space have suffered badly - and there's quite a few such pubs in Sheffield, often the oldest and most characterful ones, but also a lot of the modern bars.

I wonder how this will affect elderly people who smoke? They are the one group least likely to want to go outside for a smoke - in fact that could make them ill (if the smoking is not already doing so!). I can see that many of them will abandon the pubs.

I also wonder if this will cause an increase in pub violence as stressed smokers try to contain rage when without a fag?! This did happen in New York apparently - with several murders and attempted murders! Wouldn't fancy being a bouncer when the ban comes in...

Children being exposed to passive smoking is a horrible thing; not only are the kids exposed to a greater risk of asthma etc, but they're usually from poorer backgrounds where parents will spend more on tobacco and alcohol than on bringing up their children safely (a double whammy) and will be more likely to smoke themselves, continuing the vicious circle :(

Such kids are also more likely to live in areas with heavy air pollution, and in housing which is damp and overcrowded - a quadruple whammy?

There's a good side though - kids are also usually vehement anti-smokers and are more likely to successfully badger their parents to give up than anyone else is! If education about smoking was focussed on schools even more than it is now then more people would give up simply because their kids would keep on at them.

I know a lot of people who smoke and have kids and almost all of them are forced to take the habit outside by their offspring!

Must have come as a shock when, after not contacting your MP, the vote went against your views regarding the Identity Card Legislation.

Given you declare "I will burn my I/D Card" upon receiving your Passport with it..........I take it you would approve if we all "Light Up" anywhere when the Smoking Ban comes in?

What is good enough for one, is good enough for another. :thumbsup:

I already said "maybe i should have", so it's obvious I didn't.
And why would it be a shock, firstly there's about 600 mps, and secondly my mp has a lot more than 1 opinion to take into account.
Obviously i'll burn it where no one will be forced to inhale the smoke.

I have no definitive answer on this matter, I do smoke and wish that I didn't. Smoking bans on aircraft and public transport and restaurants haven't bothered me so this one will probably not. A question though:

There appears to be a lot of people who never enter a pub that are in favour of a total ban in pubs. This is similar to people who have never watched a boxing match but want to see it banned. Is this yet another platform for the 'Ban Everything' brigade to climb onto?

These people only want things that they do not like or participate in banned, any nasty little habits of theirs that upset others are fine. Bearded lefties riding bikes on pavements who snarl at you because you are in their way comes to mind, but they think that they are in the right. There are those that couldn't care less about the welfare of foxes that were all for a hunting ban simply because they liked to think that they didn't like hunters.

We have to be careful that we don't get carried along with this government's long list of things that they would like to ban. It is unable to come out with any sensible policy so it will continue to invoke it's 1984 agenda on us.

I also wonder if this will cause an increase in pub violence as stressed smokers try to contain rage when without a fag?! .

I suppose that's possible - Eysenck's studies showed that smokers are on average more short-tempered and aggressive than other people.

[QUOTE=crookesey]There appears to be a lot of people who never enter a pub that are in favour of a total ban in pubs.

QUOTE]


i do agree with that.
However my wife and loads of family only visit pubs where smoking is banned. so its the same pub for every night out,birthday etc which is no benefit & stops us wanting to go to a pub.

we even quit a very lucrative business in WMC's & hotels because we could not cope with the increase at that time in smoking.
6 years on when i open my dj cases they still have hint of the smoke on them.

Re-asthma and kids .
Apparently the number of cases of kids with asthma is on the increase whereas the amount of smoking has gone down in recent years .
Surely , there's only one solution -------ban car driving for pleasure and any form of industrial discharge . That should do the trick and satisfy the Health Control Freaks .........well , if ANYTHING will .......?

did i hear right that they are also proposing to raise the age for buying cigarettes?
could be wrong but i thought it was mentioned on the radio last week.

did i hear right that they are also proposing to raise the age for buying cigarettes?
could be wrong but i thought it was mentioned on the radio last week.

They'll probably also pass a law making it so that all cigarettes have to be purchased in licenced premises.

Thats political common sense !

I largely agree with this smoking ban, although I can sympathise with the argument that private members clubs should be able to permit smoking if their members want it.

One thing I disagree with is the implementation timescale though. I read on the BBC news site that the ban will be introduced in summer 2007 - that's 18 months! Why so long? Obviously they can't implement new legislation instantly, but surely 3-6 months is sufficient? :(

I don't know whose posts you were reading, I said only a few posts back that a mix of smoking/non smoking would suit me fine. - post 46

Why do I need an excuse, i'm happy with the decision, so clearly my input wasn't needed. - post 127

Wow a complete change of opinion in just 81 posts

Labour once again going back on manifesto commitments in which the British public voted them in on. No surprise.

At least hundreds of working mens clubs are under very real threat from extinction now, tis a major positive locally as the Borough becomes more conservative and middle class every year. Weatherspoons have done a major trial of it and there's at least a 7- 10% reduction in takings across the board so that's tens of thousands of jobs lost and major closures of a hefty proportion of independent pubs especially in rural areas.

The pubs that survive with no probs will be the major chains... no wonder Cameron got a stiffy after his past employment. Just clones, like the once great shopping experience is in GB on the High St.

Nice one. Labour knows best. Just like they knew best at another once thriving heartbeat of the community - the Post Office, now dead and buried all over the country because of their nannying over benefits payments. Next up the local pub.

That's not to say a blanket ban will actually come into effect and i won't have any problems smoking in pubs... or at least a pub. The landlord has risked thousands of pounds of fines in many other areas of legality before and he isn't going to change that now. That will happen all over the country.

The poncey vertical bars on the High St are well overdue a spanking in takings anyway. Job losses and all.

and as Stephen Pound in the Commons said yesterday:

'Ban, ban, ban he cried mockingly. 'Why not ban cars? Why not ban alcohol? Let's all go on a milquetoast diet of muesli, looking for a little stimulation where we can find it.'

Unfortunately the UK is turning soft. The poor sods who don't dare cross a road at a pelican crossing until the green man and bleeper goes, even if it's safe to do so. Won't find many smokers too bothered about waiting to be told when it's safe crossing the road when it clearly already is.

Taking risks is what turned Brittania into world beaters. The decline will continue. It starts off with egg and spoon races, hanging baskets being banned and it ends with persecution and freedom of choice wiped out at the core of a proud people.. something the fabric of decent society should be built on. Other nations should take note...mind you most of the west is heading the same way anyway.... to decline.

The fact is it's a sad day for England... it's one in which has wiped out the risks which any nation needs to prosper. The only way a nation prospers is with freedom of choice and an ability of her people to take risks... with that gone the terminal decline will continue.

Leftists won't mind. That is their plan... to wipe out any risk taking and ability for the people to think for themselves along with the age-old right for business to cater for what the market demands... the fact is the market didn't cater for this so they went for the jugular and have permantley damaged a once proud nation built on values.

- post 46

- post 127

Wow a complete change of opinion in just 81 posts

erm, no. I would have been happy with a decision to make some pubs non smoking. I'm just as happy that all pubs will be non smoking. It's all the same to me, i'm happy that i'll be able to get a drink without someone poisoning me.
No change of opinion at all, they went further than I thought strictly necessary, but in my favour.

I have no idea how you even thought that was a change of opinion, it seems pretty clear and straighforward to me.

what a good rant, I salute you.

Feel free to continue to play chicken on the M1 and take whatever risks you like, maybe you expect to be able to take risks with other peoples health, fortunately the government don't agree with you.

Labour once again going back on manifesto commitments in which the British public voted them in on. No surprise.

At least hundreds of working mens clubs are under very real threat from extinction now, tis a major positive locally as the Borough becomes more conservative and middle class every year. Weatherspoons have done a major trial of it and there's at least a 7- 10% reduction in takings across the board so that's tens of thousands of jobs lost and major closures of a hefty proportion of independent pubs especially in rural areas.

The pubs that survive with no probs will be the major chains... no wonder Cameron got a stiffy after his past employment. Just clones, like the once great shopping experience is in GB on the High St.

Nice one. Labour knows best. Just like they knew best at another once thriving heartbeat of the community - the Post Office, now dead and buried all over the country because of their nannying over benefits payments. Next up the local pub.

That's not to say a blanket ban will actually come into effect and i won't have any problems smoking in pubs... or at least a pub. The landlord has risked thousands of pounds of fines in many other areas of legality before and he isn't going to change that now. That will happen all over the country.

The poncey vertical bars on the High St are well overdue a spanking in takings anyway. Job losses and all.

and as Stephen Pound in the Commons said yesterday:

'Ban, ban, ban he cried mockingly. 'Why not ban cars? Why not ban alcohol? Let's all go on a milquetoast diet of muesli, looking for a little stimulation where we can find it.'

Unfortunately the UK is turning soft. The poor sods who don't dare cross a road at a pelican crossing until the green man and bleeper goes, even if it's safe to do so. Won't find many smokers too bothered about waiting to be told when it's safe crossing the road when it clearly already is.

Taking risks is what turned Brittania into world beaters. The decline will continue. It starts off with egg and spoon races, hanging baskets being banned and it ends with persecution and freedom of choice wiped out at the core of a proud people.. something the fabric of decent society should be built on. Other nations should take note...mind you most of the west is heading the same way anyway.... to decline.

The fact is it's a sad day for England... it's one in which has wiped out the risks which any nation needs to prosper. The only way a nation prospers is with freedom of choice and an ability of her people to take risks... with that gone the terminal decline will continue.

Leftists won't mind. That is their plan... to wipe out any risk taking and ability for the people to think for themselves along with the age-old right for business to cater for what the market demands... the fact is the market didn't cater for this so they went for the jugular and have permantley damaged a once proud nation built on values.

i think the government banning smoking in pubs etc. is a wonderful wonderful thing. not because it bothers that people smoke or that it makes my clothes smell- thats annoying but i have a washing machine!

the reason why i think the ban is so great is because i think it will make loads and loads of people give up all together. so many people only smoke when out and i have a few friends who have done this but then its turned into a habit. so these people could well stop all together and that would be wonderful.

the implication will be a healthier country and i don't see how anyone could argue with that

I largely agree with this smoking ban, although I can sympathise with the argument that private members clubs should be able to permit smoking if their members want it.

One thing I disagree with is the implementation timescale though. I read on the BBC news site that the ban will be introduced in summer 2007 - that's 18 months! Why so long? Obviously they can't implement new legislation instantly, but surely 3-6 months is sufficient? :(they need to gather the taxes that smoking brings to the treasury,the longer they wait the more they get and the more time they will have to find other ways of finding a way of collecting the tax that will be lost if people stop smoking

the reason why i think the ban is so great is because i think it will make loads and loads of people give up all together. so many people only smoke when out and i have a few friends who have done this but then its turned into a habit. so these people could well stop all together and that would be wonderful.

the implication will be a healthier country and i don't see how anyone could argue with that[/QUOTE]


:clap: :clap: I totally agree with u!! Can't be a bad thing and in reality no-one loses out the smokers will just have to go outside for a fag!!

I largely agree with this smoking ban, although I can sympathise with the argument that private members clubs should be able to permit smoking if their members want it.

Agree with both points.

I suspect the latter had little to do with health, but more to do with sticking it to the toffs?

Expecially as the House of Commons is exempt from the smoking ban*

*According to Radio Sheffield news at 9am this morning, the House of Commons (or it Lords?) is classed as a Palace, not a public building, so the smoking ban does not apply

they need to gather the taxes that smoking brings to the treasury,the longer they wait the more they get and the more time they will have to find other ways of finding a way of collecting the tax that will be lost if people stop smoking

but well save loads of money on the nhs from better national health and the economic implications of a healthier nation will be much greater than revenues lost imh

Agree with both points.

I suspect the latter had little to do with health, but more to do with sticking it to the toffs?

Expecially as the House of Commons is exempt from the smoking ban*

*According to Radio Sheffield news at 9am this morning, the House of Commons (or it Lords?) is classed as a Palace, not a public building, so the smoking ban does not apply

the toffs in prison aren't effected either

the reason why i think the ban is so great is because i think it will make loads and loads of people give up all together.


Going to pubs and clubs you mean ? :hihi:

Going to pubs and clubs you mean ? :hihi:

give up smoking i mean, but if it means less people drinking then even a healthier nation!!!

the toffs in prison aren't effected either

Then we can expect hardened criminals to make hundreds of passive-smoking compensation claims over the next few years :D

Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart told MPs this week that the record prison population meant that prisons should be exempt as non-smokers would have to share cells with smokers. Staff also have to go into smokers' cells.

The government's legal advice is that banning smoking in cells would have the same legal status as banning individuals from smoking in their own home.

Taken from Smoking ban loophole gives prisons a problem (http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,1651298,00.html)

but well save loads of money on the nhs from better national health and the economic implications of a healthier nation will be much greater than revenues lost imh

In your opinion?

Got any facts and figures on that?

The amount paid in tax far outweighs the cost to the NHS. In fact unlike politically correct, equally weak-minded pursuits like obesity, smokers pay a great deal more in tax.

In fact, those risk takers actually help to stave off the pensions crisis even more than it does now. Smokers choose to do this, they should be commended.

Agree with both points.

I suspect the latter had little to do with health, but more to do with sticking it to the toffs?

Expecially as the House of Commons is exempt from the smoking ban*

*According to Radio Sheffield news at 9am this morning, the House of Commons (or it Lords?) is classed as a Palace, not a public building, so the smoking ban does not apply

So there you have it, people Do as I say, not as I do .

So smoker or non-smoker you should be outraged once again at these disgusting Fag-Ends we have as M'P's.

Children being exposed to passive smoking is a horrible thing; not only are the kids exposed to a greater risk of asthma etc, but they're usually from poorer backgrounds where parents will spend more on tobacco and alcohol than on bringing up their children safely (a double whammy) and will be more likely to smoke themselves, continuing the vicious circle :(

The govt. probably have plans to recruit a few thousand more social workers to go into peoples' homes and check they're not smoking in front of the kids. If they are the kids will be put into care and the parents banged up for child cruelty :D

Anything is possible these days.

although I agree with the ban there is one ban that I think should be brought in. That is drivers smoking. I have been in a car when the driver has taken their eyes off the road to light up and even been with one who nearly crashed because the smoke got in his eyes and another who dropped the cigarette onto her lap. This is more dangerous than the mobile which has already been banned while driving.:loopy:

In your opinion?

Got any facts and figures on that?

The amount paid in tax far outweighs the cost to the NHS. In fact unlike politically correct, equally weak-minded pursuits like obesity, smokers pay a great deal more in tax.

no, i don't have any facts on this which is why i wrote imo

and you wrote "equally weak-minded persuits like obesity" got any facts and figures on that? i'd argue that smoking is a lot more addictive than eating unhealthy foods

economical implications on less people smoking are massive, not just savings in the NHS.

People will have more disposible income so good news for the retailers (perhaps less so for newsagents)

Healthier people implies more people in work which is of course good for the country

its complex thus no facts and figures

The govt. probably have plans to recruit a few thousand more social workers to go into peoples' homes and check they're not smoking in front of the kids. If they are the kids will be put into care and the parents banged up for child cruelty :D

Anything is possible these days.

oh what a silly, pointless and obviously wrong post

A victory for common sense.

A long over due social reform.

I'm a smoker and it doesn't bother me one bit. It's not as though it takes a lot of effort to go outside for a fag.

Just have to breathe in more car fumes then, "whoops shoudnt have said that" . Funny tho i dont drive but got lead flying thro me veins????:hihi: :hihi:

I think smoking should be banned all together, even in homes as it damages children.
of course smokers will disagree & come up with excuces & rant & rave about it but it's because they know they are in the wrong.
I can't believe that in this day & age people are still smoking, & then they act surprised when they get cancer :rant:.
Infact, it's not even worth arguing about, anyone with an ounce of sense will agree with the ban.

I think the idea that this will save on NHS bills might be a bit of polemic given out by those in favour of this to be honest. It does not take into account the nature of addiction. In reality, smokers will congregate at pubs where they can smoke in relative comfort outside, only those lucky few 'social smokers' (the type who only smoke when drunk) will pack it in and carry on as normal. Either those or the truly hardened drinkers who will find it easier to give up the fags than the alcohol.

Might be a big rise in sales of nicotine gum though, as people attempt to use the vile stuff in place of cigs while out boozing!

For those who do not habitually drink, the ban will have little effect.

But then this again is due to the real reason for the ban. The people who it has been brought in to protect are the workers in pubs, not the customers.

I think the idea that this will save on NHS bills might be a bit of polemic given out by those in favour of this to be honest. It does not take into account the nature of addiction. In reality, smokers will congregate at pubs where they can smoke in relative comfort outside, only those lucky few 'social smokers' (the type who only smoke when drunk) will pack it in and carry on as normal. Either those or the truly hardened drinkers who will find it easier to give up the fags than the alcohol.

Might be a big rise in sales of nicotine gum though, as people attempt to use the vile stuff in place of cigs while out boozing!

For those who do not habitually drink, the ban will have little effect.

But then this again is due to the real reason for the ban. The people who it has been brought in to protect are the workers in pubs, not the customers.

lets think long term.......lots less smokers in Ireland

i think smoking should be banned all together, even in homes as it damages children.
of course smokers will disagree & come up with excuces & rant & rave about it but it's because they know they are in the wrong.
i can't believe that in this day & age people are still smoking, & then they act surprised when they get cancer :rant:
Does the same apply to drinking then, obesity, ete. A Little bit simplistic there if you ask me.Heart disease vanishes over night then does it when smoking stops. I DONT SMOKE BY THE WAY, JUST BELIEVE IN CHOICES.:loopy:

i think smoking should be banned all together, even in homes as it damages children.
of course smokers will disagree & come up with excuces & rant & rave about it but it's because they know they are in the wrong.
i can't believe that in this day & age people are still smoking, & then they act surprised when they get cancer :rant:

There are no kids in my house, so why should I be stopped from doing something in the privacy of my own home to protect hypothetical kids? That's not an 'excuse', that's me defending my right to enjoy my own property as I like without harming anyone else.

Does the same apply to drinking then, obesity, ete. A Little bit simplistic there if you ask me.Heart disease vanishes over night then does it when smoking stops. I DONT SMOKE BY THE WAY, JUST BELIEVE IN CHOICES.:loopy:

drinking and eating unhealthly doesn't directly effect others directly

and exactly why should drink and eating unhealthly foods be banned if smoking is?

i agree that smoking should be banned altogether becasue most people who smoke want to stop, they just can't.

[QUOTE=Mathom]There are no kids in my house, so why should I be stopped from doing something in the privacy of my own home to protect hypothetical kids? That's not an 'excuse', that's me defending my right to enjoy my own property as I like without harming anyone else.[/QUOTEGood call, you could always nip down to the house of commons for a smoke. Strange that isnt it how goverment always think about us????:rant: :rant:

drinking and eating unhealthly doesn't directly effect others directly

and exactly why should drink and eating unhealthly foods be banned if smoking is?

i agree that smoking should be banned altogether becasue most people who smoke want to stop, they just can't.
Well as i said i dont drive a car but im affected by the lead in the car emissions.So to be simplistic if you drive then you affect me with your car polution??:)

Just have to breathe in more car fumes then, "whoops shoudnt have said that" . Funny tho i dont drive but got lead flying thro me veins????:hihi: :hihi:

No, but you do use/buy goods and services that utilise cars / vans / lorries somwhere.

drinking and eating unhealthly doesn't directly effect others directly

and exactly why should drink and eating unhealthly foods be banned if smoking is?

i agree that smoking should be banned altogether becasue most people who smoke want to stop, they just can't.

Many smokers enjoy smoking, especially cigar and pipe smokers can be connoisseurs of tobacco, just as much as people are into wine appreciation. It may not be healthy but nevertheless a lot of people gain a good deal of pleasure from it, just as they do from sunbathing, partaking of buerre blanc sauce, playing poker and parachuting. Just because a thing can harm people does not mean it ought to be banned.

Where regulation is correctly used is where it is used to deal with a pastime affecting other people or being carried out to excess. That's why I actually think it is reasonable for smokers to be segregated from others indoors, as this new law will do. However to ban it outright removes civil liberties. And would also be utterly unworkable.

Banning it won't help people give up - heroin is illegal but it doesn't stop people using it.

Well as i said i dont drive a car but im affected by the lead in the car emissions.So to be simplistic if you drive then you affect me with your car polution??:)

cars are useful- they get people from a to b, what advantages are there in smoking?

cars are useful- they get people from a to b, what advantages are there in smoking?
Yes but what about the polution,wether you smoke or dont its up to the indiviual .??:rant:

but well save loads of money on the nhs from better national health and the economic implications of a healthier nation will be much greater than revenues lost imh

unfortunately a cursory check would prove that opinion to be wrong. Cost to the NHS £2 bill, revenue from tax £6 bill.

Yes but what about the polution,wether you smoke or dont its up to the indiviual .??:rant:

I think that it is far easier for society to go without people smoking than it would be for society to go without Hospitals, the police, fresh food, fresh water, telecomunications etc. All these thing rely upon the combustion engine somewhere along the line.

Also as I mentioned earlier you do profit massively from cars / vans / ambulances/ lorries / buses / taxis / ships / panes / tractors etc, or do you disagree?

unfortunately a cursory check would prove that opinion to be wrong. Cost to the NHS £2 bill, revenue from tax £6 bill.

go back and read my post....did i just talk about costs to the nhs or did i mention the economical implications?

so your cursory check didn't prove my opinion wrong did it?

Yes but what about the polution,wether you smoke or dont its up to the indiviual .??:rant:

what is your point?

do you think banning smoking and banning cars/vans/lories and trains to be equivelent?

what is your point?

do you think banning smoking and banning cars/vans/lories and trains to be equivelent?

I think the point is that if you smoke, you choose to pollute your own lungs, likewise if you do not wish to be polluted by smoke you can choose to avoid it. But if you do not want to be harmed by fumes you have no choice in the matter unless you have the money to go and live somewhere like Sark, where there are no cars.

BTW I don't think vehicles should be banned! That too would be unworkable. But like with smoking, I think it is inevitable that their use will end up being restricted in some way.

of course the only way for a non smoker to avoid the smoke would have been to avoid leaving their house as before yesterdays vote smokers rights always took precendence apparently.

What the government should do regarding transport is encourage the use of greener more economical styles. Ie biodiesel, and other alternative fuels should be subsidised to encourage their use.

of course the only way for a non smoker to avoid the smoke would have been to avoid leaving their house as before yesterdays vote smokers rights always took precendence apparently.

What the government should do regarding transport is encourage the use of greener more economical styles. Ie biodiesel, and other alternative fuels should be subsidised to encourage their use.

Even if we turned every acre of our countryside including the national parks into land for growing fuel crops we still would not have enough land to provide for our current fuel needs. Thus we would be looking to the third world for provision and going down that road would lead to even more starvation.

I'm a smoker and it doesn't bother me one bit. It's not as though it takes a lot of effort to go outside for a fag.

Exactly. i couldn't have put it better myself. All this rubbish about civil liberties etc. It is just about a bit of minor inconvenience all said and done. Some smokers are just so pathetic with their whinging.

I want to know why we have to wait the best part of 2 yrs before this ban comes into effect?
How many lives will be lost to passive smoking in this time?

I want to know why we have to wait the best part of 2 yrs before this ban comes into effect?
How many lives will be lost to passive smoking in this time?

Do you want me to answer that?

Nigh on a monkey. and even then the evidence won't be reliable as in did they smoke themselves.

I can see loads of landlords going "hmm...we're going to need a bigger beer garden"

filty dirty smelly smokers put me off my food in pubs and restaurants, make my clothes and hair smell and puts fag smoke in my eyes and lungs.

GOOD RIDANCE

It's a long time to wait :( But at least they did it!

They've got the tax thing done quite well too - I doubt cigarette sales will drop that hugely, it is an addiction and it's not as easy to get shut of as 'hmm, okay I'll stop' for most people. But the cost to the NHS will decrease due to the health benefits from reduced passive smoking - and to be honest, I think the statistics on certain diseases over the next decade or so will show up just how much of an effect that was having - might even be striking enough for them to consider clamping down further. I personally believe the estimated costs to the NHS are well below the mark.

I'm completely in favour, in an ideal world I'd be more happy with a complete and utter ban of the disgusting things, but this is good. Plus I guess they are doing us a favour by removing stupid people and cutting down on the overpopulation problem, as long as they're not also damaging my health I don't mind.

filty dirty smelly smokers put me off my food in pubs and restaurants, make my clothes and hair smell and puts fag smoke in my eyes and lungs.

GOOD RIDANCE

You'll have to wait over a year... diddums. I don't actually think you go out anyway so your "food in pubs and restaurants", like the rubbish said by a lot of people is more fakery than truth.

As in i go blah blah times a weeks. As LA birds would say for a lot of those... whatever.

It's a long time to wait :( But at least they did it!

They've got the tax thing done quite well too - I doubt cigarette sales will drop that hugely, it is an addiction and it's not as easy to get shut of as 'hmm, okay I'll stop' for most people. But the cost to the NHS will decrease due to the health benefits from reduced passive smoking - and to be honest, I think the statistics on certain diseases over the next decade or so will show up just how much of an effect that was having - might even be striking enough for them to consider clamping down further. I personally believe the estimated costs to the NHS are well below the mark.

I'm completely in favour, in an ideal world I'd be more happy with a complete and utter ban of the disgusting things, but this is good. Plus I guess they are doing us a favour by removing stupid people and cutting down on the overpopulation problem, as long as they're not also damaging my health I don't mind.

All in all, you sound to me as though you are full of self-righteousness.

Perhaps the Messiah has finally re-arrived on Earth as a crayfish...who knows?

With a bit of luck, if you get your Biology degree or whatever you aspire to achieve, do us all a favour and keep out of the "Caring Professions".

Perhaps a tub-thumping minor religious sect may be more appropriate to your nature. :gag:

Damn I'll have to sell all those shares I've got in British American Tobacco......nah sod it plenty more of the third world markets to exploit, especially little children

Nah ha ha ha ha ha

(gathers black cape, dons top hat, twirls moustache - exits pub) :hihi:

Just have to breathe in more car fumes then, "whoops shoudnt have said that" . Funny tho i dont drive but got lead flying thro me veins????:hihi: :hihi:


Well done in getting Lead from Unleaded fuel:loopy:

Does the same apply to drinking then, obesity, ete. A Little bit simplistic there if you ask me.Heart disease vanishes over night then does it when smoking stops. I DONT SMOKE BY THE WAY, JUST BELIEVE IN CHOICES.:loopy:


If you are obese and smoke and your doctor had to choose only one to address it would be smoking.

Well as i said i dont drive a car but im affected by the lead in the car emissions.So to be simplistic if you drive then you affect me with your car polution??:)


THEIR IS NO LEAD ANY MORE:loopy:

It was banned in 2000.

You'll have to wait over a year... diddums. I don't actually think you go out anyway so your "food in pubs and restaurants", like the rubbish said by a lot of people is more fakery than truth.

As in i go blah blah times a weeks. As LA birds would say for a lot of those... whatever.

Imagine how narky Doncastrian's gonna get when he's no longer allowd to smoke! lets hope he just becomes a donaster full timer!!!

Hmm, good idea. Maybe I should start the sect of the Crayfish. I'm full of opinion, how you choose to infer my personal qualities from that is up to you.

But messiah is a nice way to do it, cheers.

Hmm, good idea. Maybe I should start the sect of the Crayfish. I'm full of opinion, how you choose to infer my personal qualities from that is up to you.

But messiah is a nice way to do it, cheers.

Never mind...with a bit of luck you'll grow out of it.....:thumbsup:

I expect so :) Might as well enjoy it while I'm still invincible and omniscient (Um, as in young, I don't actually believe I'm a diety of some sort)

I wonder what effect the smoking ban will have on the fine, old, and still prevelant tradition of "after bird" or "lock in" as it is sometimes known.

I assume patio heaters will have to be switched off at chucking out time and it wouldn't be done for folks to be stood outside having a fag at two in the morning a couple of hours after the pub "closed".

Sadly I can only see it ending in more fees for m'learned friends.

I wonder what effect the smoking ban will have on the fine, old, and still prevelant tradition of "after bird" or "lock in" as it is sometimes known.

I assume patio heaters will have to be switched off at chucking out time and it wouldn't be done for folks to be stood outside having a fag at two in the morning a couple of hours after the pub "closed".

Sadly I can only see it ending in more fees for m'learned friends.

good call, i'm going into business selling patio heaters

Even if we turned every acre of our countryside including the national parks into land for growing fuel crops we still would not have enough land to provide for our current fuel needs. Thus we would be looking to the third world for provision and going down that road would lead to even more starvation.

That's only one alternative fuel.
But either way it should still be encouraged.

as Stephen Pound in the Commons said yesterday:

'Ban, ban, ban he cried mockingly. 'Why not ban cars? Why not ban alcohol? Let's all go on a milquetoast diet of muesli, looking for a little stimulation where we can find it.'

Yes but on the Today programme the following morning, having slept on it, he'd had a Damascene conversion, accepted the ban as the right thing to do, and sounded as though he was thinking about giving up smoking himself.

I wonder what effect the smoking ban will have on the fine, old, and still prevelant tradition of "after bird" or "lock in" as it is sometimes known.

I assume patio heaters will have to be switched off at chucking out time and it wouldn't be done for folks to be stood outside having a fag at two in the morning a couple of hours after the pub "closed".

Sadly I can only see it ending in more fees for m'learned friends.

Well in Ireland after closing time, if there's a lock in, the ashtrays are whipped out from under the bar where they've been stashed and all the smokers light up indoors just like the old days. I guess they think 'might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb'. Although I hear the local police turn a blind eye and often partake themselves. :hihi:

Of course in a lot of our pubs drinking hours are longer now, so people will just be stood outside til 1 or 2 in the morning drinking and shouting.

I wonder what effect the smoking ban will have on the fine, old, and still prevelant tradition of "after bird" or "lock in" as it is sometimes known.

I assume patio heaters will have to be switched off at chucking out time and it wouldn't be done for folks to be stood outside having a fag at two in the morning a couple of hours after the pub "closed".

Sadly I can only see it ending in more fees for m'learned friends.

If the pub had closed it's doors, and is outside trading hours, surely it becomes a private residence??

The govt. probably have plans to recruit a few thousand more social workers to go into peoples' homes and check they're not smoking in front of the kids. If they are the kids will be put into care and the parents banged up for child cruelty :D

Anything is possible these days.


oh what a silly, pointless and obviously wrong post

Oh ? - what a rude rocketpig you are!...and rather lacking in imagination too, - if you think the anti-smoking lobby will be content with what they have achieved so far.

Children whose parents smoke are at serious risk to their health and don't have a choice about passive smoking. Are the govt. not going to do anything to help them now they've done so much for the adult population?

I'll be very surprised if this situation doesn't become the next target of the campaign and it will be far more divisive than the issue of smoking in pubs and clubs.

Another odd little aspect to all this :--Over the past 20 years or more the Health and Safety people have been urging us all to give up smoking so as to improve the nation's health .
Millions of people have followed their advice .
However .......what a surprise !! We are spending more and more on private medicine , both in hospitals and chemists ' shops ........etc........
Our N.H.S. hospitals are under a constant strain , so we are told , despite the extra billions poured into the Health Service .
About 3 million people can't work due to disabilities and more and more children are suffering from asthma , apparently .
I suppose the Health and Safety people will really have to go back to the drawing board and search out for something else to ban . Obviously the reduction in smoking hasn't had a great effect on the nation's health . So , what will they stick their noses into next ? Could it be alcohol ? The Americans tried it for 11 years -----not very successfully-------but then the Americans of the 1920's were probably less like sheep than a lot of present -day Brits . Or could it be fatty or unsuitable food ?
One thing is for sure -------the Health and Safety Prodnoses will never , ever , be satisfied until practically every aspect of our lives is regulated and controlled . They're half -way there already------why stop now ?

One thing is for sure -------the Health and Safety Prodnoses will never , ever , be satisfied until practically every aspect of our lives is regulated and controlled . They're half -way there already------why stop now ?

Exactly! They assume tax-paying adults are unable to make informed decisions about their own health.

Weatherspoons have done a major trial of it and there's at least a 7- 10% reduction in takings across the board so that's tens of thousands of jobs lost and major closures of a hefty proportion of independent pubs especially in rural areas.

Isn't it more likely that they saw the decline during the trial as other places were allowing smoking just along the road from the Weatherspoons? With all venues being non-smoking, the choice will not be there, and so it won't affect business - after all people go to the pub not to smoke but to drink.

Oh ? - what a rude rocketpig you are!...and rather lacking in imagination too, - if you think the anti-smoking lobby will be content with what they have achieved so far.

Children whose parents smoke are at serious risk to their health and don't have a choice about passive smoking. Are the govt. not going to do anything to help them now they've done so much for the adult population?

I'll be very surprised if this situation doesn't become the next target of the campaign and it will be far more divisive than the issue of smoking in pubs and clubs.

Am only rude when i say outrageuosly stupid posts....you've just done another one. I can't beleive you were being serious!!!

Health Advisors (not social workers) already visit homes where there are young children, and the parent does not have a choice over the visits. Parents are already made aware of the dangers to young children over passive smoking. And have you not seen all the tv adverts? i'd like to see the figures on the extent of the success of this scheme.

Your problem is you just see the recent ban to effect only people who go to the pubs and clubs, whereas i see it as a potential social reform which will help everybody, including the children

Exactly! They assume tax-paying adults are unable to make informed decisions about their own health.

the problem wasn't there own health with this issue, it was the health of everyone else who had to suffer as everyone posting here is fully aware.

No one has banned you from killing yourself in whatever way you personally see fit, just don't take anyone else along for the ride.

the problem wasn't there own health with this issue, it was the health of everyone else who had to suffer as everyone posting here is fully aware.

No one has banned you from killing yourself in whatever way you personally see fit, just don't take anyone else along for the ride.

But they've banned it in private members clubs. Now whats wrong with a club where people go to smoke providing the staff are smokers as well?

But they've banned it in private members clubs. Now whats wrong with a club where people go to smoke providing the staff are smokers as well?

what about all those people who currently don't go to/or work at private members clubs because they're too smokey?

what about entertainment acts who go to these places?

ban is fair and great for them isn't it?

what about all those people who currently don't go to/or work at private members clubs because they're too smokey?

what about entertainment acts who go to these places?

ban is fair and great for them isn't it?

No-one is being forced to work in smokey, private members clubs even now, so I fail to see why a club where everyone agrees to smoke is a problem. Even 'entertainment' acts could say 'no thanks' if they know the place has a smoking policy.

The Banners will no doubt be rubbing their little hands with glee after their latest victory in the Battle of the Smokers .
They will now be sitting in their hygenic committee rooms , spectacles glinting in the light , unblinking eyes scanning the latest co-ordinators ' reports.
Glasses of gripe-water before them , jobs secured for life , fire-proof pensions , they will now be searching desperately for another way to get millions or billions out of the Government to campaign against anything they can dream up .
Suddenly a fantastic idea emerges . What about entering people's homes and prosecuting them for feeding their children dangerous food ?
Inspectors will be needed by the thousand , co-ordinators obviously , out-reach workers , counsellors , Heads of Departments , computers , link-ups , the Social Services , the Police ....................in an almost ecstatic mood one of them picks up the 'phone .
A couple of elderly people are being mugged in the street outside at that moment and three very fat children wobble by , swearing and breaking the odd window .
Welcome to the New Cool Britannia !!

No-one is being forced to work in smokey, private members clubs even now, so I fail to see why a club where everyone agrees to smoke is a problem. Even 'entertainment' acts could say 'no thanks' if they know the place has a smoking policy.

you're right.......i just feel sorry for those people who's families go to these smokey working mens clubs and WILL have a premature death.

I'm all up for personal choice, but in this case IMO people are making the wrong choice and I simply think the government are right to intervein.

And what great news this is for pregnant mothers who will be able to go out for dinner without inhailing smoke

I'm aware its easy for me to say, as i'm a non-smoker

The Banners will no doubt be rubbing their little hands with glee after their latest victory in the Battle of the Smokers .
They will now be sitting in their hygenic committee rooms , spectacles glinting in the light , unblinking eyes scanning the latest co-ordinators ' reports.
Glasses of gripe-water before them , jobs secured for life , fire-proof pensions , they will now be searching desperately for another way to get millions or billions out of the Government to campaign against anything they can dream up .
Suddenly a fantastic idea emerges . What about entering people's homes and prosecuting them for feeding their children dangerous food ?
Inspectors will be needed by the thousand , co-ordinators obviously , out-reach workers , counsellors , Heads of Departments , computers , link-ups , the Social Services , the Police ....................in an almost ecstatic mood one of them picks up the 'phone .
A couple of elderly people are being mugged in the street outside at that moment and three very fat children wobble by , swearing and breaking the odd window .
Welcome to the New Cool Britannia !!

why can't you simply see that people are for this ban because it could prevent our family members from a premature death?

I'm all up for personal choice, but in this case IMO people are making the wrong choice and I simply think the government are right to intervene.

So you're only up for freedom of choice if people make the right one, in your opinion? Unbelievable!

But they've banned it in private members clubs. Now whats wrong with a club where people go to smoke providing the staff are smokers as well?

I think that was taking it too far, although I don't personally mind as it's not my freedom it's encroaching from.
if a group of people want to set up a smoking club, they should have the right to do that.

But places that are nominally open to the general public, ie public houses, the opposite should apply.

And what great news this is for pregnant mothers who will be able to go out for dinner without inhailing smoke


There are already millions of places a pregnant mother can go for a meal without inhaling smoke - although the home isn't one

As reported on a thread here yesterday, the Houses of Parliament are exempt, being a "Palace". Westminster Tea Rooms and subsidised Bars continue as usual.

This will apply to all Palaces, Buck House etc.......

What about the "dangers" of secondary smoking to the reams of employees working in that "industry"?..........

I use the word "industry" with tongue in cheek........

The Landlord at my local, the excellent Cask & Cutler, was spitting blood about this on Tuesday.

Not a New Labour fan at the best of times he was furious.

Now he is going to provide some sort of awning in the beer garden and a couple of heaters.

I look forward to seeing all the non-smokers on this thread and all those in the general populace who were so determined to ban smoking in pubs flock to the Cask now that the smokers will be banished. In that way the landlord won't have to put the prices up to cover the extra costs of his beer garden renovations.

He also said that it would probably sound the death knell for extractor fan industry - but by this time he was so furious he would have blamed Blair for anything

So you're only up for freedom of choice if people make the right one, in your opinion? Unbelievable!

is choosing to use heroin the right choice in your opinion? Hopefully YOU judge this to be the wrong decision, so in your opinion people should be denied the freedom of choice.....its called making judgements, and thats how law making is done

You and I have different judgments on this, thats fine. the differnece is that 3 out of 4 of the countries representatives of the voters agree with me

you're right.......i just feel sorry for those people who's families go to these smokey working mens clubs and WILL have a premature death.

I'm all up for personal choice, but in this case IMO people are making the wrong choice and I simply think the government are right to intervein.

And what great news this is for pregnant mothers who will be able to go out for dinner without inhailing smoke

I'm aware its easy for me to say, as i'm a non-smoker

Only one third of smokers die of conditions which can be smoking related - many of which could also be caused by diet, lack of exercise, environmental toxins and genetics. The other two-thirds die of something else. Ergo, you cannot say that a smoker WILL die of it. They stand a decent chance of doing so, but it is in no way certain.

shoeshine - how about the Woodseats Palace then? Will folk be allowed to smoke in there? Or is it a Witheredspoons? ;)

Only one third of smokers die of conditions which can be smoking related - many of which could also be caused by diet, lack of exercise, environmental toxins and genetics. The other two-thirds die of something else. Ergo, you cannot say that a smoker WILL die of it. They stand a decent chance of doing so, but it is in no way certain.

shoeshine - how about the Woodseats Palace then? Will folk be allowed to smoke in there? Or is it a Witheredspoons? ;)

i didn't say they will die from smoking, i said they'll have a premature death.

Its widely known that non smokers live longer

is choosing to use heroin the right choice in your opinion?

I choose not to use it, and would discourage others from doing it, but if they really, really wanted to, then that's their decision no matter what I think.

the differnece is that 3 out of 4 of the countries representatives of the voters agree with me

Since when has having a majority made something 'right'???

Since when has having a majority made something 'right'???

Its called democracy, got an alternative?

I choose not to use it, and would discourage others from doing it, but if they really, really wanted to, then that's their decision no matter what I think.

Since when has having a majority made something 'right'???

so you want to legalise heroin? you've just shown you don't have one single braincell

i didn't say they will die from smoking, i said they'll have a premature death.

Its widely known that non smokers live longer

If someone aged 21 crossed the road now and got knocked down and killed is that because they smoke?

If someone aged 65 chokes to death on a ham sandwich next Thursday, is that because they smoke?

Non-smokers tend to live longer because statistically they do, compared as a group, not because they always do. Statistics are representative of what tends to happen, they do not say what exactly happens!!!

The Landlord at my local, the excellent Cask & Cutler, was spitting blood about this

Probably through years of passive smoking.. would recommend him see a doc immeadiately and get a chest x-ray ;)

If someone aged 21 crossed the road now and got knocked down and killed is that because they smoke?

If someone aged 65 chokes to death on a ham sandwich next Thursday, is that because they smoke?

Non-smokers tend to live longer because statistically they do, compared as a group, not because they always do. Statistics are representative of what tends to happen, they do not say what exactly happens!!!

i'm glad you explained that to me. what if the man crossing the road was on his way to buy fags?

i stand corrected (said the man in orpheapedic shoes)

do you enjoy splitting hairs?

Its called democracy, got an alternative?

Democracy is supposed to be a fair system of rule, where everyone is equal. I believe limiting human rights removes some of this equality.

Having a majority doesn't make one right, it makes one part of the majority. I can think of several occasions when a majority has been proved to have acted wrongly.

so you want to legalise heroin? you've just shown you don't have one single braincell

And why would legalising heroin be a bad thing, pray?

I believe everyone has right to do what they want, when they want, where they want providing they hurt no-one else.

So I fail to see why smokers shouldn't be allowed a private space where they can light up without hurting anyone except themselves.

I don't think you're helping the non smokers argument Rocketpig.

Mathom is correct in what he says, on average people who smoke live for shorter periods, but it's only an average, it doesn't apply to every individual (and would be hard to prove either way, I guess a twin study would be the best way to investigate).

Likewise with your argument for legislation to stop self harm. People have the right to do whatever they like with their own bodies. The reason heroin should remain illegal is that it rapidly leads to crime to feed the addiction and so impacts directly on other people. If people want to snort rat poison or bungee jump or do many other potentially harmful things, they have that right, so long as they aren't going to force someone else to join in (passive bungee jumping maybe) and aren't going affect other people by their activity.

One of the tenants of a fair democracy is to enact the will of the majority whilst protecting the rights of the minority.

Democracy is supposed to be a fair system of rule, where everyone is equal. I believe limiting human rights removes some of this equality.

Having a majority doesn't make one right, it makes one part of the majority. I can think of several occasions when a majority has been proved to have acted wrongly.



And why would legalising heroin be a bad thing, pray?

I believe everyone has right to do what they want, when they want, where they want providing they hurt no-one else.

So I fail to see why smokers shouldn't be allowed a private space where they can light up without hurting anyone except themselves.

A majority makes the RIGHT decision for the majority. If its what the majority want, of course its the right decision for the majority and the wrong decision for the minority. doesn't mean the minority are wrong, it means their judgements lie elsewhere.

I have no respect for you because you are trying to argue that heroin should be made legal

I have no respect for you because you are trying to argue that heroin should be made legal

Stop arguing with him then. You obviously show him some respect (as you are trying to change his opinion) by debating this.

If you had no respect for him you wouldn't have to challenge him so.

Wilf

i'm glad you explained that to me. what if the man crossing the road was on his way to buy fags?

i stand corrected (said the man in orpheapedic shoes)

do you enjoy splitting hairs?

He could, indeed, have been crossing the road to buy his nicotine patches in order to give up and make everyone happy. ;)

You statistically are extremely unlikely to win the lottery and are more likely to be killed by an asteroid, but nevertheless, somebody wins the lottery, and how many killer asteroids have you had to dodge? In the same way, there could be someone who has never smoked, never even left their isolated, smoke free island, but they could die of lung cancer at the age of 25, and there could be the hardened 40 Capstan a day man who lives to be over 100.

I don't think you're helping the non smokers argument Rocketpig.

Mathom is correct in what he says, on average people who smoke live for shorter periods, but it's only an average, it doesn't apply to every individual (and would be hard to prove either way, I guess a twin study would be the best way to investigate).

Likewise with your argument for legislation to stop self harm. People have the right to do whatever they like with their own bodies. The reason heroin should remain illegal is that it rapidly leads to crime to feed the addiction and so impacts directly on other people. If people want to snort rat poison or bungee jump or do many other potentially harmful things, they have that right, so long as they aren't going to force someone else to join in (passive bungee jumping maybe) and aren't going affect other people by their activity.

Non of this opposes anything i said.

I agree that self harmers should be forced to get help. I'm not talking about those who scratch the wrists, i'm talking about those who are really harming themselves.

Suicide is illegal in this country, what do you think about that?

its all about judgements

He could, indeed, have been crossing the road to buy his nicotine patches in order to give up and make everyone happy. ;)

You statistically are extremely unlikely to win the lottery and are more likely to be killed by an asteroid, but nevertheless, somebody wins the lottery, and how many killer asteroids have you had to dodge? In the same way, there could be someone who has never smoked, never even left their isolated, smoke free island, but they could die of lung cancer at the age of 25, and there could be the hardened 40 Capstan a day man who lives to be over 100.

and i agree with you

I was wrong to say if you are a smoker you will die early, we've got to think of it as a group, i realise that.

The chances are significant enough for me to say that it is very likely which is just as good for me