Smoking ban - yea or nay?

[Gmart]

8ball

You're just narked coz you won't be able to have a fag and force your cancer on other people. Boo Hoo!!!

Like it or not more people don't smoke than do. And they have the right to go out and not get poisoned by their fellow man. No matter how often you ignore this fact it is valid. People have the right to go out, they shouldn't be forced to stay home to avoid the cancerous atmosphere of pubs. I am all in favour of a free, liberal attitude but it just did not work in this case.

This whole thread has been you refusing to accept this and then throwing insults at those who disagree with you. Well tough luck! I'm glad this ban has come in, and it works fine over here in Italy. Just because the government has dared to breakdown the monopoly smokers have on going out at night. And now you go on about abuse of democracy. Poor you!

The whole of Europe is going this way because SMOKING KILLS geddit? You can go outside along with the rest of your minority.

As far as your argument as to the workers I am heartened that you feel so little concern for workers rights. I would think twice before you throw them away so easily, just because it doesn't fit into your agenda against this ban.

Fair point about minority rights of course, but I don't think that the constitution (which is no doubt needed) is likely to have the right to impose disease on your fellow man just in the name of so-called freedom, or how would you phrase it? "I have the right to smoke where I like, and F**K the lot of ya" Sounds about right!

 

[8ball]

You're just narked coz you won't be able to have a fag and force your cancer on other people. Boo Hoo!!! !

Don't smoke, don't have cancer either as far as I know.

Like it or not more people don't smoke than do.

That's better, some connection with reality there.

People have the right to go out, they shouldn't be forced to stay home to avoid the cancerous atmosphere of pubs.

Second use of the 'f' word when it's just the folks on your side of the argument that are pushing for an extension of the use of force. War is peace, freedom is slavery.

The rest is silly strawman stuff that I thought had been put to rest earlier in the thread. I appreciate you hadn't waded in at that point.

 

[Paul Russell]

I freely admit to not having read all the zillions of posts above.

But it will be bonkers/chaos for a while in some circumstances.

Take what happened in trains for example.

They recently banned smoking on Southwest Trains. Well, within the last couple of years. One of the last train companies to do that.

There used to be one small smoking carriage by the bar. Now none.

In the evening on Friday -- a 3 hour journey from London to Dorset, loads of pissed up commuters and people of to the pub a couple of stops down the line.

People get desperate and smoke in the toilets or between carriages.

OK, in the end everyone will stop smoking, but in the meanwhile, smoking really doesn't bother me (as a non-smoker) but I find it irritating when the toilets, etc., are out of bounds...

Bring back the smoking carriage..

 

[smokedout]

ok, lets disregard the fact that the evidence for passive smoking causing any health risks whatsoever is flimsy as fuck .. akin to the cannabis causes schizophrenia argument

ie not proven by a long way

lots of people work in places where they breathe in hazardous substances, i used to work in a lab and the rule was that the room had to have six complete air changes an hour

this, according to the HSE stopped any risk to my health, the same regulations could have easily been brought in to protect bar workers, its called air conditioning and industrial air conditioning is pretty powerful kit

so the protect the workers argument is complete specious, its got nothing to do with protecting the workers

its got more to do with blair and co throwing a scrap to the social worker element of new labour who they badly need if theyre going to cling onto power

the upshot of this ban will be disasterous for working mens clubs, shisha bars and working class pubs, as has been seen in scotland where middle class foodie pubs have done well and council estate pubs have closed

its yet another attack on the working class, though there is no agenda other than helping blair and co build a bit of loyalty within a party thats deserting him because of the iraq war

its authoritarian bullshit with no basis in sceince or the facts of the matter and using workers rights to justify it is ludicrous

are they going to ban working in any industry where noxious fumes are produced, say goodbye to having your photos developed or your motor fixed then

its a load of bullshit and im surprised that so many usually reasonably intelligent people on here have bought it hook line and sinkers

 

[8ball]

the upshot of this ban will be disasterous for working mens clubs, shisha bars and working class pubs

Well at least the MPs will be well catered for with their subsidised bar with smoking allowed (workers rights seemingly not applying in the House of Commons) and the City boys will have their private members clubs.

Then again, attitudes to any kind of drug use have always depended chiefly on the social class of the user - business as usual, I suppose.

I'm not sure this is just a sop to the niche group you mention, smokedout, I've found this Government to be full of smug hectoring authoritarianism right from the outset, much of it coming from the top, with any 'liberalising' attitudes applying chiefly to capital.

 

[Gmart]

The rest is silly strawman stuff that I thought had been put to rest earlier in the thread. I appreciate you hadn't waded in at that point.

I don't think you actually understand the strawman fallacy which is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Nothing I have said is this at all, I have taken the actual situation. Smoking DOES cause cancer FACT. Smokers DO thus have a monopoly on going out if unregulated. Thus it is only fair on the majority to regulate when the market fails.

I'm with you about the Westminster bar not being covered though. That's the definition of privilege, one set of rules for those in power and one set of rules for us proles!!

It would be nice and simple if this was a class issue, but it isn't, loads of people smoke because addiction goes beyond class.

its authoritarian bullshit with no basis in sceince or the facts of the matter

That's great that. I mean obviously it IS backed up by science and logic, but it is authoritarian, and I would usually be against it but it is the duty of the government to regulate if the market fails, and it has here. If they didn't have this duty we would have no workers rights or really any laws at all!

Of course I appreciate that some jobs have inherent danger. However this is not (for me) about the workers, they can choose to work where they like and if the employer provides an area which is not safe they can be sued under the current law. My issue is the monopoly the smoker has on going out in a country where there isn't a ban. That is the reality without a ban.

 

[krtek a houby]

I oppose it because there's no half-way house.

Ye go to the pub to relax & indulge in yer vices, be it smoking or drinking, whatever.

If the powers that be had insisted half the pub be non-smoking, that's fine.

Anyway, it's gonna happen and nothing can be done now to stop it.

Just have to get used to it.

Damn.

 

[lightbulb]

I used to smoke fags (socially - in a pub with a beer - only because I could not have a bifta!) Fags are shit. I gave up when I saw that advert showing that fatty shit coming out of the artery - since then I don't smoke fags.

So I am all for the ban (Sorry smokers).

In the long run - I think it will help smokers cut down. Plus it will stop me smelling like shit when I get back from the pub. So all in all a positive move.

 

[8ball]

My issue is the monopoly the smoker has on going out in a country where there isn't a ban. That is the reality without a ban.

I went out twice last weekend. Don't smoke, got a bit pished.

I did get chased out of time by an angry mob who noticed I wasn't smoking, though . . .

<ponders>

What the . . hey, I think you may be onto something!!!

 

[Sweaty Betty]

I used to smoke fags (socially - in a pub with a beer - only because I could not have a bifta!) Fags are shit. I gave up when I saw that advert showing that fatty shit coming out of the artery - since then I don't smoke fags.

So I am all for the ban (Sorry smokers).

In the long run - I think it will help smokers cut down. Plus it will stop me smelling like shit when I get back from the pub. So all in all a positive move.

ahhhhhh its lightbulb

 

[bluestreak]

i'm surprised no-ones mentioned roy castle yet.

 

[JHE]

However this is not (for me) about the workers, they can choose to work where they like and if the employer provides an area which is not safe they can be sued under the current law. My issue is the monopoly the smoker has on going out in a country where there isn't a ban. That is the reality without a ban.

Then I would have thought that your preferred solution would be for some places to ban smoking and others not to ban it.

The problem with that, from my POV, is that the workers in the places without the ban still have to put up with the smoke.

It's not just about the most serious effects of tobacco smoke that might affect some who are exposed to others' smoke over many years at work. It is also about the lesser and indisputable effects on some (more sensitive) non-smokers and the fact that quite a lot on non-smokers simply hate being subjected to smoke.


Re. the claim, from several people, 'Well, they don't have to work there': (i) Some may very well need to work there. (ii) The same claim could be made about offices and shops and other workplaces. Should smoking be allowed in them (as it used to be in many) and on public transport (as it used to be)?

 

[bluestreak]

that's a good argument JHE - why the partial ban? personally i think pubs should be able to apply for smoking licences which require proof that there is adequate ventilation to protect staff and customers, but personally my time in new york taught me that it's really not a problem. whilst i can see 8ball's slightly paranoid point and i fucking hate the hypocrisy that the clubs of the elites seem to be able to do as they please i really think that this is a public protection issue rather than a creeping state control issue. there are plenty of more important creeping state control issues to get frothy about.

 

[8ball]

there are plenty of more important creeping state control issues to get frothy about.

Yeah, I get frothy about those too. Just can't understand why it seems to be so few people with this one.

So many people (I don't mean on U75 in particular) seem to just dumbly repeat whatever the last Government minister on the telly said, which is a bit scary but nothing new, obv.

Round U75, very little actual questioning of the official line whereas with most issues I wouldn't expect that. Then there are the 'dumb inevitabilty responses', the lobotomised 'it might help me give up' crowd (does no one else see how incredibly rude and selfish it is to want something banned because in your saner moments you realise you'd rather not do it?), and of course the 'ban anyone who does anything I don't like' camp.

Then there are the people here have come to their conclusions by some kind of process of thought, and I may not agree with them, but that's cool.

Just consider yourself banned.

 

[TAE]

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about how certain people have come to their conclusions.

 

[8ball]

I know when people parrot out certain words in certain combinations, then they haven't really thought about what they're saying.

That's just basic psychology and why buzzwords and slogans are so powerful, they help to short-circuit the rational thought process.

Though there were a few amusing surprises, like smokers having a monopoly on going out and Gmarthews whose tealeaves told him I was a narked smoker who was having a tantrum, attributed me with an agenda then within six posts seemed to have totally forgotten saying it (tbf it was the weekend so he may have been pissed).

So all in all I don't think I have the monopoly on 'making assumptions about people'.

 

[TAE]

I know when people parrot out certain words in certain combinations, then they haven't really thought about what they're saying.

I find it rather interesting how you dismiss peoples' views like that, but I digress.

 

[8ball]

Is this where you ask me to tell you about my mother?

 

[JHE]

...Gmarthews whose tealeaves told him I was a narked smoker who was having a tantrum....

The tea leaves were half right, then!

 

[TAE]

Is this where you ask me to tell you about my mother?

That's also a very interesting response.

 

[8ball]

The tea leaves were half right, then!

Presumably you come out with some kind of point somewhere around page 8?

 

[TAE]

Hmm, number 8, very interesting indeed.

 

[pogofish]

Luckily, there's not much of a problem with passive drinking.

Actually, any problem with passive smoking is rendered insignificant when viewed alongside the secondary ill-effects of alcohol.

The invitation-only consultations on future drink restrictions started last summer in Hollyrood.

This is one of the main anti-groups involved.

http://www.alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk/

They have toned down their language on the website a bit since they got Executive (ie public!) funding but AFAIK, their basic aims remain the same - Short of a total ban, they want all alcohol sales linked to the upcoming ID register & an enforcable control system/daily purchase or consumption limit set. Nice lot!

 

[pogofish]

"Bar staff in Scotland are now exposed to 86% less smoke following the introduction of the smoking ban in March 2005, research has revealed.".

Did they also mention that across several studies, they were very hard-pushed to actually find any worker in a pre-ban smoking bar whose average exposure even came anywhere near any sort of measurable/quantified minimum exposure level?

Yup, I'm now also working for one of the very scientists named in those studies!

 

[Yossarian]

Pubs are already closing down all over the place because of demographic changes, changes in people's habits, etc. so it seems like now's a strange time to go ahead with a total ban and give the pub trade another big kick in the teeth!

Most people I know smoke anyway so I suspect after the ban kicks in I'll end up doing a lot more socialising round people's houses and a lot less time in whatever godforsaken smoke-free Pitcher & Piano or whatever replaces the local pub.

 

[pogofish]

I'm a smoker and have just got back from a party in a non smoking venue.

At a similar party in a smoking venue I would have easily smoked 20 fags tonight but I ended up having about 3 which I popped out for.

In a Scottish non-smoking pub the other week:

That is not fag smoke, instead it is a bloody awful eye & throat burning smoke machine that is left running virtually all the time!

The same pub (which is excellent otherwise & used to be my local ) has just started burning incense regularly too & I was in another one recently that had a fug going that would do justice to any pagan altar. Never mind all the other places who have installed industrial strength perfume/scent squirters.

It was a true relief to get out for a breather & an occasional cigarrette.

I must have crashed most of the packet of fags that I'd bought for that night out (usually stick to rollies by myself) to non-smokers who didn't want to feel left out when they went outside.

 

[pogofish]

Most people I know smoke anyway so I suspect after the ban kicks in I'll end up doing a lot more socialising round people's houses and a lot less time in whatever godforsaken smoke-free Pitcher & Piano or whatever replaces the local pub.

Yup, since the ban here, I've been to more parties than in a very long time & have a better choice of regular lock-ins (where smoking is permissable) than I've ever had before. Still, what I do miss is not really in pubs, rather a cup of coffee & a cigarrette after work. Very few cafes have been able to get any sort of smoking provision & you can't say there was not a good choice of smoking/non-smoking places even before the ban.

 

[Gmart]

Actually, any problem with passive smoking is rendered insignificant when viewed alongside the secondary effects of alcohol.

Not the same tho is it!! I mean you don't decide to go to the pub, only to have alcohol drifting into your mouth and being swallowed during the evening despite your own wish to remain alcohol free.

As far as your anti-alcohol lot goes, I'm sad to say that people will ALWAYS want to tell other people what to do. The reaction to bring in more laws rather than deal with the basic problems (dealing with addiction, why people want to drink, etc) is just typical. We can't educate people adequately or give them equality of opportunity so we prohibit. It is this attitude which has caused so many problems in the Drugs Trade (with quality and the criminal element) and Prostitution (lack of control and safety for the workers).

Typical!

 

[pogofish]

Not the same tho is it!! I mean you don't decide to go to the pub, only to have alcohol drifting into your mouth and being swallowed during the evening despite your own wish to remain alcohol free.

As far as your anti-alcohol lot goes, I'm sad to say that people will ALWAYS want to tell other people what to do.

Nope, people can suffer from other's drinking in a whole raft of ways.

Indeed & this is where the Scottish ban is maybe worst of all. It has given new-heart & complete vindication to all sorts of ban-it-all types & campaigns, who are now pushing hard to get their own particular bugbear on to the statute books.

 

[Gmart]

But all those ways are active, ie through the conscious decisions of others as opposed to passive...