Countries back pedalling on the smoking ban.

[carosio 186]

Pubs have always been drinking and smoking dens and I think that they ought to have remained that way, but how can the non-smokers be accommodated if they prefer to have a meal in a clean atmosphere and not come away smelling like an ashtray? We would also have to consider the position of other establishments such as restaurants, cafes, cinemas, etc.

[Hallamton 10]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of restaurants. Even when I used to smoke, I hated smoking or being in a smokey atmosphere while eating but ultimately no-one is forcing you to eat at a particular restaurant where smoking is allowed. You could always go somewhere else. It's as stupid as walking into a restaurant and saying you like nothing on the menu so you want them to change.

[carosio 186]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of restaurants. Even when I used to smoke, I hated smoking or being in a smokey atmosphere while eating but ultimately no-one is forcing you to eat at a particular restaurant where smoking is allowed. You could always go somewhere else. It's as stupid as walking into a restaurant and saying you like nothing on the menu so you want them to change.

 

Inso-far as there is a choice, fine, but (for example) rural villages might only have one pub or cafe so one or the other (person) is going to be excluded. Trying to isolate smoke to one part of a pub is also big problem as the layout of many of our older pubs makes this impractical or hard to accomplish.

[lizmachin 10]

Smoking has been in pubs since forever. If the workforce were bothered about the health effects then they wouldn't have applied for the job in the first place and if they did it's their own fault for choosing that particular job. It's along the same lines of people who choose to do job X paying 16k and then complain about not getting a pay rise.

 

 

Smoking hasn't been around forever. It didn't really take off in the UK until 1850, and it wasn't until soldiers started returning from war in 1918 that it became widespread.

 

The tradition of widespread smoking in pubs can only be traced back 90 years.

 

Regarding bar staff; they have every bit as much right to be working in a safe environment as anyone else. It is not acceptable to make a job conditional on a person smoking.

 

Like it or lump it. There is a smoking ban in England, and it isn't about to be changed. If anything further restrictions will be applied. No amounts of threads on Sheffield Forum just going over the same old ground is going to alter that.

 

Has anyone heard any of the political parties advocating a relaxation of the ban? NO, and that is because it would be morally indefensible as well as being a vote loser.

[Hallamton 10]

Actually, Labour did backpedal on their initial plan of the smoking ban. This goes to show that opinions can change, and I'm sure if Labour thought they were about to lose leadership because of issues like this they would backtrack. Talking from the point of view of someone who used to work in pubs, I knew the pub had a smokey atmosphere before I started working there and if I'd had a problem with it, I would have worked somewhere else.

[MrNM 10]

In spain most place let you smoke now, they leave it to the pubs owners to make the choice.

France seem to following suit.

dozens of pubs closing down every week since the smoking ban.

do you think it should be down to choice ?

 

It's the price of beer not the smoking ban, unless you drank in a hovel

[beer 10]

Actually, Labour did backpedal on their initial plan of the smoking ban. This goes to show that opinions can change, and I'm sure if Labour thought they were about to lose leadership because of issues like this they would backtrack. Talking from the point of view of someone who used to work in pubs, I knew the pub had a smokey atmosphere before I started working there and if I'd had a problem with it, I would have worked somewhere else.

 

Keep saying it to yourself enough times and you will start to believe it could happen. In the meantime I will carry on breathing that sweet fresh air.

[Hallamton 10]

I don't see this as an argument of whether smoking is right or wrong, or if it's better now than it was before. The problem I have is how the whole situation was dealt with. It was a poorly planned and executed idea that I fear was only done to improve confidence with the Government. And what's worse are the people who can't see that although it might be a positive step for health, it's also meant that our Government have just taken the freedom of choice from us - something that shouldn't be happening in a "democratic" society.

[beer 10]

I don't see this as an argument of whether smoking is right or wrong, or if it's better now than it was before. The problem I have is how the whole situation was dealt with. It was a poorly planned and executed idea that I fear was only done to improve confidence with the Government. And what's worse are the people who can't see that although it might be a positive step for health, it's also meant that our Government have just taken the freedom of choice from us - something that shouldn't be happening in a "democratic" society.

 

The government haven't taken the freedom of choice from anyone. You are still free to smoke, it is just not where it will effect others. If you want to smoke you can go outside and smoke, if you need a pee you go to the toilets.

 

The smoking ban was not rushed through. It was a carefully considered bill taking into accout reports from health authorities whose studies suggested it would save around 40,000 lives annually.

 

Call me sellfish if you like but I think saving 40,000 lives is more important than your supposed right to force others to breathe your poisons.

[Scabbydog 10]

Does this sound like backpedaling on the smoking ban?

 

Marriot Hotels voluntarily imposeda total ban on smoking ANYWHERE in its US hotels.

 

Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE: MAR) announced today that all of the Company’s lodging brands in the United States and Canada will become 100 percent smoke-free, beginning in September. This represents the industry’s largest move to a non-smoking environment, with more than 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments and nearly 400,000 guest rooms under the Marriott, JW Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Courtyard, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites, Fairfield Inn, TownePlace Suites and Marriott ExecuStay brands.

 

 

“Creating a smoke-free environment demonstrates a new level of service and care for our guests and associates,” said J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International. “Our family of brands is united on this important health issue and we anticipate very positive customer feedback.”

 

The new policy includes all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public space and employee work areas. Currently more than 90 percent of Marriott guest rooms are already non-smoking and smoking is prohibited in many public spaces due to local laws. Demand for non-smoking rooms continues to rise with new information from the Surgeon General on the hazards of secondary smoke.

[Hallamton 10]

I think a much easier way of saving 40,000 would be for the people who didn't want to smoke to go to non-smoking pubs (which existed before the ban took away the right of choice for landlords).

 

As for not being rushed, the health affects of smoking were made known from the 60's and Labour only announced their anti-smoking policy in 1997. Since then their public smoking ban policy was only really engineered at the turn of the decade and the finer details of the ban were sorted in the space of 6 months. Not rushed? Please.

 

You're seeing this argument from a one way perspective of the smoking ban being positive/negative for customers. What about the landlords? They weren't given the choice of whether they wanted a smoking or non-smoking pub. And using the whole "you are still free to smoke - outside" argument is insane. I could quite rightly say "you're free to smoke free air - outside" the argument still stands that one specific group of people are affected.

[Hallamton 10]

Call me sellfish if you like but I think saving 40,000 lives is more important than your supposed right to force others to breathe your poisons.

 

On an extra note, I don't smoke.

 

And I'm not calling you selfish, but I could call you other things if you think any smoker is FORCING others to breathe in smoke. As already said, the negative affects of smoking have been made known since the 60s so any none smoker should already know they are inhaling poisonous fumes and while drinking their poison and has the choice to do it somewhere else.