lnr | Smoking ban

Smoking was banned in pubs, bars and restaurants here a few years ago. The trade predicted doom and disaster but it didn't happen. The bars are as busy as ever but much more pleasant places to be. If people want a cigarette they step outside for one just like at work.

Let's hope they ban that too; I'm fed up of having to hold my breath through a cloud of smoke on my way out to lunch just because we've got a sheltered doorway...

Doesn't California ban smoking within ten feet of the entrance to a public building or something like that?

D

For the last question, I wanted to select all of the first three :)

One thing to bear in mind re private members clubs is that student unions are private members clubs, and as someone who spends at lot of time in the IC Union I'm very glad it'll finally be totally smoke-free next summer.

The thing is, with a private members club there is nothing to stop the members of that club voting it in for themselves...

But the majority might want to smoke, that doesn't mean the minority shouldn't be allowed in what is their student union - as a thought experiment, consider the case of a student union which was racially segregated at the instigation of the white majority.

Big difference - smoking is a legal pursuit, racism isn't.

You can't argue against making something illegal on the basis that it's currently legal! Racism is legal in private, just like smoking will be soon.

?
I'm not on about making something illegal - I'm on about members of a club choosing for themselves whether or not they allow a legal pursuit to take place in their club or not, as per the wish of the membership majority.

Yes, and 'being a racist' is perfectly legal. But we do not allow members of a club to allow it to take place in their club, regardless of the wishes of the membership majority.

I think you're using the analogy of racism, to minimise the fact that you don't really have a balanced view-point on this. It's embarassing for people to be (sort of) likened to a racist because they express a certain opinion, based upon certain beliefs - such as the freedom of choice.
Maybe if you explained your opinion/arguement in a less emotive manner it would be more interesting/compelling?

I've done the arguing blandly about it to death though, really. Basically in my view smoking = physical aggression which harms me. It should be banned in public just like walking up to people and slapping them.

A nagging unease as to what they'll ban next.

When they came for the foxhunters I did not speak up, because I was not a foxhunter.
When they came for the smokers I did not speak up, because I was not a smoker.

Yes, me too. I don't like the government's nanny state attitude and generally disagree with banning things.

But this case? Well, smokers are harming lots of other people, and I will like the end effects so it's a tough call for me.

What you said, really. If it wasn't Nanny Blair banning it I'd be a lot happier.

They aren't banning smoking. They are banning inflicting your smoke on people who don't want it. It's more like banning drinking and driving. You can drink all you like just don't put me in jeopardy by driving.

That comment up top about how, for smokers, it'll be just like at work - well, going to the pub *shouldn't* be just like work. Sure, some people work there, but the smoke should be accepted as one of the job's problems, like heat in a foundry, or being gibbered at by coked-up tools if you deal with PRs. And 'you can drink all you like'...well, for how long? With all the anti-binge talk being talked, I would be deeply unsurprised if some legal limit on how much booze people can buy came in within the decade. Already they're talking about pricing booze up, in dire contrast to that brief and quietly buried campaign against 'rip-off Britain'.

Why should smoke be accepted as part of going to the pub? I'm old enough to remember when people smoked in the office, in hospitals, in the theatre, in cinemas, on planes, on buses, everywhere. We've decided that people have a right to be free from second hand smoke in those places. Why are pubs different?

Hospitals should be as healthy an environment as possible, so it made sense to ban it there. Aeroplanes already have enough problems with air filtration, so it made sense to ban it there. In theatres and cinemas the fug tended to impair the view (the prime purpose of the experience), so it made sense to ban it there. But the total ban on trains and buses was already a step too far - apart from anything else, I would sometimes hit the smoking carriage just because it was easier to get a seat.
The ban in pubs is, like the (theoretically still law) ban on swearing in pubs, an unjust imposition for somewhere which is meant to be a place of relaxation. I've nothing against non-smoking pubs, maybe even giving them tax breaks - though it's noticeable that in all the time I was in Cambridge, nobody ever suggested going to the Free Press, and business in the smoke-free Wetherspoon's has been way under expectation.

Aircraft never had problems with air filtration - they never bothered. The major change since aircraft banned smoking is that the air is actually staler and stuffier on board.

When you're going several hundred miles an hour through clean air, diverting some through the cabin is never a problem. The actual expense is in warming it to a sane temperature. As it's that warming that takes energy, now they don't have the smoke, they don't refresh the air so much.

Really? So that's at least one area where it's already been counterproductive!

It's pretty much an averages thing.

If you were on an aircraft back then full of smokers, then it was worse than today, even with the better ventilation.

If you were on an aircraft that had no smokers on board, then it was definitely better.

These days, it's more consistent. And I suppose that the seat fabrics no longer smell of smoke.

I saw some figures once that the air in an aircraft is refreshed more often than the air in a typical office.

D

I'd hope so. A full aircraft is considerably more crowded, and needs more frequent air changing.

OK, people go to pubs to eat and drink; to enjoy food and beverages. That would suggest that they might like their senses of taste and smell to be unimpaired. What interests me here is that all the same arguments for not banning smoking were deployed when smoking was banned in hospitals but I have yet to find a single person now who seriously argues for its reintroduction.

At work I have to deal with the consequences of other people being inconsiderate all the time. I agree that the pub shouldn't be like work. I want to not have to waste my friend-designated leisure time dealing with the consequences of people who know they're making other people ill, smelly and itchy and continue doing it anyway.

In theory it's already an offence to serve alcohol to someone who's too far gone. It's rarely enforced though.

D

Yeah, I know. I always thought they should have that in restaurants too, for the obese. "I'm sorry sir, I think you've had quite enough."

People *work in pubs*.

Yes, I know. That's why I said, in the comment to which you replied but don't seem to have read, "Sure, some people work there, but the smoke should be accepted as one of the job's problems, like heat in a foundry".

I think the point is that heat in a foundry is something which can't be changed, whereas smoke in a pub is something which can be changed. So that's why they're changing it.

I have to admit that when I did bar work for one summer as a student I didn't really think much about the smokiness. But then I'd never encountered a non-smoking pub back then, so I doubt it occurred to me it could be different.

*agrees*

Absolutely... what's next? Alcohol? Fatty foods? Being out in public unaccompanied by another adult?...

Being overweight. I've already heard health experts suggesting it.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

Why can't you be against a ban on ONE THING and for a ban on ANOTHER thing that is DIFFERENT?

Jesus...

Because once the mechanisms are in place to start banning stuff, each ban gets progressively easier to implement.

By that logic we should never ban anything...

Ban bans! That's the obvious answer.

Yep, that should be the default position - with bans on anything only deployed when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour.

You are cute and fluffy! :P

The comment just illustrates that everyone seems fine with banning stuff... right up to the point where it affects something *they* don't want to see banned because if affects *them*.

I understand the comment. But I *actually* believe that banning fox hunting and smoking in pubs and killing people and various other things are CORRECT! I don't believe banning smoking in the street or indeed completely or eating fatty foods or doing drugs ARE correct. Many of these things barely affect me BTW but I would defend to the death ppls right to do them because I believe those things are actual RIGHTS.

You have your views, and mine vary.
Personally I think the next thing all the vehement anti-smokers wil be complaining about and trying to get banned next will be the gaggle of people outside the front doors of public houses (i.e. outside) meaning that people have to walk through that fug to get into the pub in the first place.

So we should reintroduce smoking in hospitals, cinemas, planes etc then?

Case 1. In a special smoking room with proper air filtration and extraction I see no problem with this - and with proper air filtration and extraction if you have a designated slot where it is "out of use", half of which allows any remaining smoke in the air to get processed, the other half of which allows any cleaners in to the place... well, it's not even a H&S issue as there is no smoke exposure to cleaning staff
Case 2. Our local cinema until very recently allowed smoking upstairs only (on the grounds that this didn't affect the people downstairs)... until some local busybody anti-smoker who doesn't even use the cinema found out about it and decided to get the local council to prohibit it in there - people came from miles and miles around purely because it was a cinema that they _could_ smoke in - they are now on the verge of shutting (small one screen place run by the villagers for the villagers) due to the drop in turnover from the "out of village" trade meaning they now can't afford the upkeep
Case 3. see case 1 - if it is done in a way that allows non-smokers to travel without being affected and so that staff can be sure of clean air when they need to enter between flights, then I see no problem with a small area being sealed from the main passenger deck as an inflight smoking room - I also see no problem with charging smokers for this facility (as there would be a cost associated with it)

All these "black and white" cases could actually be turned grey with a little bit of thought...

My point isn't that our views vary. It is that one can wish the banning of one thing without being a mental anti smoker or anti everything kind of person!

But I don't agree with smoking in clubs and bars or ripping foxes to bits. I do agree with smoking on streets/outside places/in private. I do agree with being able to drink as much as you like as long as you are not dangerous. These are things I will stand up for, I will not stand up for smoking or foxhunting and I resent the idea that just because I don't somehow it will be 'told you so' if they ban something I agree with.

Forget for a moment that foxhunting is "ripping poor innocent fluffy animals to pieces" and think about whether you agree with the fact that this is a law that was passed not for pragmatic but for political reasons. It was passed in spite of the fact that it makes no significant positive change to the everyday life of the vast majority of its country's people; in fact it has a negative impact on some small rural communities; it's enormously unpopular with a very respectable sector of the public; in short, its major benefit is essentially to make the Labour party look morally better than its opponents.

To me that's not lawmaking for sane reasons, that's politics gone mad. This government has an extremely disturbing nanny-state attitude in any case: it seems to believe that governments are unbiased and entirely fair-minded institutions which should (can!) be blindly trusted with telling the public the difference between naughty and nice, and the hunting ban is a case in point. I disagree with the hunting ban because I think it's a vile little piece of covert class warfare, disguised as morality by manipulative rhetoric; and it disturbs me, frankly, that our country is currently in a state where that kind of thing gets precedence over genuinely important stuff like sorting out the appalling state our education system and health services are in.

*applause*

I've lived in two cities where smoking has been banned (Boston and Dublin), exactly as

chickenfeet2003 says all the doom and gloom sayers came to nothing. Life went on as usual, except I could breathe better when I went out for a drink. Those who wished to smoke just went outside briefly (and believe me, during a Boston winter you've got to be a pretty dedicated smoker to go out in -5C/-10C for a cig).

Smoking in pubs was one of my reservations about moving back to the UK, when I visit London for a weekend and go out with people for a couple of nights I'm coughing my lungs up for most of the rest of the week. Much happier about moving now :)

Public houses in cities/ large towns are quite a different matter to small rural public houses though. Our small rural local has just about enough trade to keep it from shutting. The landlady smokes. Her staff smoke. About 85% of the people using the public bar smoke. There are two bars, so it would be easy enough to have a smoking one and a non-smoking one, but instead smoking will be entirely banned and some of the already dwinding clientele will stop going. In this particular case where is the justice and fairness for any of those people?

Life isn't fair.

In many of these cases it's been found that although you lose some people who smoke you can also gain people who can't stand the smoke and attendance doesn't really change.

However, in any change of reasonable complexity there are always edge cases, you can't make everybody happy. Banning smoking in public places is an important issue on so many fronts, including health, that I think it should happen anyway. An increasing proportion of the developed world is agreeing.

Banning smoking in public places is an important issue on so many fronts, including health, that I think it should happen anyway

And little by little by little the rest of our freedom of choice is removed... what will you support them stopping next? Alcohol consumption (it is bad for you in the quantities normally imbibed by people going to pubs)? Fatty food consumption (it's for your own good you know)? Where does this nanny state end?

That's entirely hyperbole.

They're not banning smoking. They're banning it in public places. If they were banning it entirely then I'd agree, it would be bad and taking choice away, but they aren't.

People can smoke as much as they like. Just not around other people inside the pub.

...even if every single other person in the place would also be smoking in there if it wasn't banned... which is the stupid bit.

So if one person who didn't smoke walked in everyone could stop smoking and remove all the second hand smoke from the room instantly ? Yeah, that would work so well.

If you have some venues that have smoke allowed and others that do not then you limit the places where non-smokers (particularly the ones who have medical reasons for not coping with smoke) can go. Is that fair ? No. If you allow some venues to have smoke and others not then all the smokers go to that place and nothing changes. is that safe ? No.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

You intimate that life wasn't "fair" before, but were you prepared to deal with it and leave it as it was? No. At least you had a choice in that there were *some* venues you could go to to socialise in the way you wanted to, and the "middle ground" proposal would at least have tried to cater for everyone in some way. It strikes me that some people are only too happy to accept these things as long as it is in their favour, and everyone else can go hang. No thought of compromise appears to have entered your head at all - it's all or nothing.

Any "compromise" still affects the health of people in those venues or affects the business of venues that cannot go non-smoking.

The example of a small village has already been given: if you had a pub and a private-members club as the only facilities in a village and one is allowed to keep smoking then all the smokers will go there and negatively affect the business of the other. Is that fair ? No. Every example you can come up with there is a counter-example to how it does not work in a slightly different situation.

As I said before, you cannot please everyone. No one solution will fit all requirements. Life isn't fair. The "middle ground" proposal would have tried to cater for everyone and it would have caused more problems than it solved.

The bottom line is that this is a health issue, for workers, for the public, for customers. The only reasonable way to solve this issue is to ban smoking in all those places. Full stop. If you disagree, then I suggest you write to your MP because whining to me will get you precisely nowhere.

And every example that you come up with has a way around it to make it fairer all round. By the way, I already *have* written to my MP about many matters this week - let me know when you've written to yours on the more important issues this week like the ID cards fiasco and the regulatory bill due to be discussed tomorrow :-)

(PS. I really don't expect to get anywhere in this "discussion" with you. You've already shown your true colours as a dogmatist so there isn't much point in hoping for a change in your opinion :-))

I'm not currently a UK resident (and haven't been since 1997) so I don't have an MP to write to.

And so the landlord refuses to hire me because I don't smoke?

Yup. We already have some employers discriminating against employing people who smoke (North Wales Police for example), so I see no problem with discrimination in the other direction.

By "mixed opinions" I mean that I favoured the "partial" option - I believe in choice and the rights of both sides here - it should have been perfectly feasible to cater for everyone in some way :-(

I think it's an excellent thing. I really hate smoky rooms, I hate the way all my clothes stink afterwards, I hate the "smoke in your face" effect when you shower in the morning, and as an epidemiologist I'll be glad to see the back of so much passive smoking.

I'm an ex-smoker - a year and a half now, and heading on for two years, it's been. I've seldom had the desire to have a cigarette since I quit.

My mixed feelings? Well, I guess it'll be nice not to have to breathe other people's smoke in the pub, but at the same time, I'm really wary about banning smoking on other-people's-health grounds, or unpleasant-for-non-smokers. I'm terrified of dogs - largely because I've been bitten, the dog concerned being on a lead and apparently well behaved before that - so can I have a 'you should not be allowed to walk your dogs in public places because they may damage my health' campaign? - why should I suffer because you want to have a large and dangerous predator in your life? Why should you be able to make my bus reek of wet dog?

But if we ban everything that might impact on someone else, pretty soon, we'll be locked in little coffins, because that's the only way to be completely 'safe'. Hmm.

I'm incoherent, but that's kind of it...

the smoke that fags pump out = dangerous to health of others. smell of wet dog = not dangerous.

I also imagine that more ppl die of passive smoking than dog related iccidents.

Smell of wet dog, or dry dog for that matter, is plenty dangerous to some people with breathing problems, just as cigarette smoke is :-(.

This is true. But in general you are less likely to be in a place with little ventlation (as far as I am aware, people with breathing problems don't tend to have much problem in say, a park that has a dog in.) with a dog than you are with someone smoking. In fact the only places now are public transport and a few pubs.

Yes, I imagine that the statistics for dog related breathing trouble are much lower than those for cigarette related trouble, because fewer people will have dog trouble than cigarette trouble and there are generally more smokers than dogs in a pub!

I can't speak for others but, as a rule of thumb, if I can't smell something, it's probably not going to trigger my asthma (so dog in a park, or cigarette in a park = not big deal). But if I can smell things (strong perfume, smelly animals, cigarettes), there's a jolly good chance it will make me ill.

Dogs are already banned from many pubs.

D

And we already ban dogs which have no reason for existence other than killing things...

Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice. I think that *some* pubs becoming non-smoking is a good idea, to allow people to go and have a drink in the atmosphere they like.
However, I disagree with the total ban. I think people should have a *choice*, and that should mean that people have to option to smoke if they wish when having a drink. People say that they don't like not having the choice to avoid secondary smoke. Well, how about other people's choice to smoke in a designated pub? What about *smokers'* rights? Smokers have stopped smoking at work, public transport and so on. I think one institution that allows smoking is not too much to ask.
I think one of the most concerning aspects of the ban is the imposition of the government on non-government premises and the public. They are telling people what they must do, they are telling *private* businesses what they HAVE TO DO. I think the government has intruded on the populace's life quite enough.
I like to think of myself as a responsible smoker. I don't smoke in restaurants, even in the smoking section, because people are eating. I sit away from non-smoking sections. I don't smoke at work, on public transport and so on. But I do think smokers deserve to have the opportunity to go into an environment where they can smoke. Just as others should have the chance to go to an environment without smoke.

If I may:

Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice. I think that *some* pubs becoming mixed-race is a good idea, to allow people to go and have a drink in the atmosphere they like. However, I disagree with total integration. I think people should have a *choice*, and that should mean that people have to option to be in a whites-only environment if they wish when having a drink. People say that they don't like not having the choice to go to all pubs regardless of their race. Well, how about other people's choice to drink in a whites-only pub? What about *racists'* rights? Racists have stopped discriminating at work, on public transport and so on. I think one institution that allows segregation is not too much to ask. I think one of the most concerning aspects of the ban is the imposition of the government on non-government premises and the public. They are telling people what they must do, they are telling *private* businesses what they HAVE TO DO. I think the government has intruded on the populace's life quite enough.
I like to think of myself as a responsible racist. I don't believe in segregation in restaurants, even in transport cafes, because people are hungey. I sit away from black customers. I don't discriminate at work, on public transport and so on. But I do think racists deserve to have the opportunity to go into an environment where they can be with their own kind. Just as others should have the chance to go to a mixed-race environment..

Your argument is spurious.

Because.........?

How DARE you compare me to a racist. That is completely out of order and will be asking LNR to delete your comment. It is completely offensive, and if I hadn't already heard of your aggressive reputation, I would probably be even more furious.
You have compltely missed the point that I am rather liberal, am trying to reach a sensible balance between both parties' rights, accepting non-smokers' rights.
I think you missed all of that in *you're* bigotted opinion.
Don't drag everyone down to your level.

How DARE you compare me to a racist.

Because your argument is completely analogous. It doesn't make you a racist, but if you believe people should be allowed to do a thing which is bad and harmful by shared consent, you need to explain why that liberalism applies to some bad things (smoking), and not others (racism).

I don't think they are in anyway comparable. I am talking about a matter of health, which I believe is a perfectly acceptable justification for offering some kind of choice for people. Racism has no logical basis. Offering separate accommodation does.
I'm not imposing any value judgement on who is 'better', smokers or non-smokers, which is the case with racism. If smokers were able to smoke in a pub, that doesn't affect their behaviour outside of it, or how they view non-smokers. I doubt there are many 'smoker driven' beatings and killings.
Hope this clarifies things for you.

Sure, I'm not arguing about whether one is better than another. I'm arguing about whether people who want to do a harmful and unacceptable thing should be allowed to do it in clearly designated premises.

I'm yet to understand why that differs from racism - it's easy to construct a similar argument in the other case. For instance "if racists were allowed to drink in whites-only pubs, there'd be less racial violence caused by forcing people who hate each other to get drunk in close proximity to each other".

A smoker or non-smoker could go into a segregated premesis simply by modifying their behaviour, if only for a short time. Racial segregation has no such analogy.

Maybe. I still think in the case of non-smokers they can go into a segregated premise by taking the risk of coming to harm as a result, therefore...

Harmful, yes. Unacceptable, no. Making non-smokers breathe in your smoke may be considered unacceptable because you are imposing something on them that is detrimental. As a by-product, you can also argue that making their clothes smell of something they don't like is also unpleasant.

It does differ from racism in so many fundamental aspects, that I'm surprised you can't see them. Secondary smoke in closed areas does cause harm. Therefore it is fair and reasonable to provide a choice for non-smokers to enjoy an evening in smoke-free surroundings. However, I think it is fair to provide facilities in which people can smoke, if they so chose. As I mentioned before, it's not keeping anyone out of either facility - smokers can go and not smoke in non-smoking pubs, and non-smokers can come into smoking pubs. You are arguing that they are *completely* segregated, with no exceptions.
You see, it's a matter of choice whether to smoke, whereas the colour of your skin is not a choice. There are good reasons not to smoke, whereas there are not good reasons for racism.
I think you're getting mixed up in the 'hate' aspect. Smokers and non-smokers don't hate each other as people, and don't look down on each other as human beings. The only reason for a choice of facilities is just that - to provide a *choice*. It doesn't impinge on normal social interaction, and as for the example of violence, that really is spurious.

You might have a point on racism, I need to think about it more when I haven't been on a late train and the rush hour underground and am not VERY HUNGRY. I stand by my violence analogy however, that's precisely what smoking at someone is - it's directly causing them harm - in effect, it is attacking them with a weapon. Not a very good one in the short term, I'll grant you, but that's not the point.

Oh yes, non-smokers would obviously be welcome in a smoking pub, if they so chose!

Alright, replace the segregated pub with the pub that just coincidentally happens to be where the local BNP, football hooligans and so forth happen to drink. Ethnic minorites are completely legally allowed to go there.

Racism is being prejudiced about a property that isn't a bad thing and that people can't choose whether they have or not. Smoking is a bad thing and people can choose whether they do it or not. I think it was unreasonable to make the comparison.

Hang about. I'm not comparing being a smoker to being black, I'm comparing allowing smoking in private businesses because people can choose whether to go there with allowing racism in private businesses because people can choose whether to go there.

No, you're comparing being a non-smoker to being black. You wouldn't play the "you're just like a racist" card unless your side of the argument was represented by the less advantaged group.

Actually, I don't think it would be justified to delete your comment. You have the right to free speech, and to wilfully misunderstand a valid, considered, and fair arguement.

I'm sorry jdc but while I see the point you're trying to make several of your substitutions are not even vaguely like-for-like: "I sit away from black customers" and "I sit away from non-smoking sections" for example: a courtesy to others being turned into a statement of aversion.

I'm not going to delete any comments, because I don't believe that helps, but I'd appreciate it if you could apologise for upsetting saffie - at least make it clear you don't believe she's a racist or similarly bad.

We've all seen people use nazism as an analogy in the same way you've just used racism, and I doubt you think that's appropriate. Or do you really think smoking is as unpleasant as racism?

Re screening: I could but I have to be on a train. Please cut and paste my reply for me...

[I posted a version of that comment, then deleted it, jdc replied to the earlier version too quickly though. I've screened that reply as it was dangling. He's asked me to repost his reply here as he has to catch a train]

I'd appreciate it if you could apologise for upsetting saffie - at least make it clear you don't believe she's a racist or similarly bad.

Of course I don't, I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was engaging in the normal philosophy undergraduate pastime of constructing a logically similar argument to one which appears acceptable in order to explain why I don't consider it valid.

Or do you really think smoking is as unpleasant as racism?

It depends what racists do. I'd rather sit next to a table of racists than a table of smokers, but evidently beating someone up for being black is worse than blowing smoke on them.

What's the current law regarding single sex private clubs? Whilst racism may be viewed as wrong, surely there are plenty of cases where discrimination is legal, and isn't necessarily viewed as wrong - people may have reasons for only being with members of the same sex, and we wouldn't consider them sexist.

I'd say that wanting to have a place to be with other smokers for the purpose of smoking is more comparable to this, than racism, since there are clear rational reasons for this (as long as we accept it's not unreasonable to want to smoke), where as race segregation was based on prejudice.

There're plenty of examples where either private clubs or even places open to the public have rules about who is and isn't allowed in, from Scouts disallowing atheists, to shopping centres banning people with hoodies, and people often defend this with the argument "it's private, they can do what they like".

So the question of whether this should also apply to someone setting up a "smoking club" especially for the purpose of smoking is very reasonable I think - racial segregation may be a thing of the past, but there are plenty of more relevant comparisons which are still legal and considered acceptable.

Now, the argument for banning smoking everywhere is to do with the rights of the employees, which isn't a factor in running no-hoodie-shopping centres or single sex clubs. Or white-people-only clubs, come to that.

Oh yes? And when the *only job opening in the surrounding 20 miles* is at a smoke filled pub... is that a *choice*. Yes, you chose to go to a pub as a customer, yes, as a customer you could chose to frequent only smoking (or non smoking) pubs and do what you like and yes, that's better for the *customer*. However *someone* is selling you those drinks, *someone* has to be in that pub all *day* (opening hours as aplicable to pub) breathing in the customers' smoke. And *no* people do *not* allways get to work in the job they most want to have, and *no* you do *not* allways get to say 'no, this job is not for me' if it is available.

Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice.

Sadly there seems to be no way to provide that choice.

I frequent the local JD Wetherspoons, a purpose-built pub building constructed for the company when it had a ventilated zones policy (it now has a non-smoking policy on all new pubs). I assume therefore that the non-smoking ventilated area was designated from the earliest stages and is as good or better than anything that can be retrofitted. There is an entrance straight into this area and the toliets are non-smoking (and accessed through the non-smoking area). Generally speaking only one of us will go to the bar to order during any visit. Despite all this, and the fact our visits are generally for breakfast at about 10 on a Saturday, rather than a really smokey time later, we still end up smelling of smoke for the rest of the day.

Unless you've got any brighter ideas, choice is simply not a possibility and I, as someone who doesn't like smalling of smoke, therefore comes down on the side of a total ban.

I really do appreciate your point. Personally, I know that non-smoking areas don't work. I just think that some pubs could be non-smoking and other could allow smoking. I appreciate the logistical problems in this, but I'm really trying to find some kind of compromise.
I really do appreciate your point about non-smoking areas being pointless, however :)

I have to confess to being terribly selfish on this issue. Normally I like to take a balanced view of almost everything; in a case like this I should be thinking about the passive-smoking harm to customers, their choice to be there or not, the passive-smoking harm to employees, their choice to be there or not, the general ethics of the State dictating what we should or shouldn't do and the question of whether any given harm is bad enough to make it worth having a law, the question of enforceability, and probably nine or ten other factors which have momentarily slipped my mind. I generally find it easy to see both sides of an argument, and often find it rather more difficult to make up my mind into a clear opinion one way or the other.

But in this particular case, I find my lungs outvoting my brain two to one. I'm very fond of breathing, and in spite of all the potential objections to a ban I simply cannot find it in me to disapprove of a measure which will allow me to do so more conveniently in a wider range of places.

I do have a slight discomfort about broad-brush bans. Perhaps more so when the effects are skewed towards particular socioeconomic groups, though I don't think this case gives much to worry about there upon a full consideration.

But, well, it's not a harmless pleasure (even ignoring the effect on the smoker): as such I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate it to reduce the harm it causes. I think time will tell whether the decision here was a good one or was heavy-handed.

You could argue that the groups most affected by the ban are precisely the groups that need help and encouragement to stop smoking. Although if you're in a pub in Glasgow and an inebriated local lights up, are you going to ask him to stop or just leave?

D

Long time since I've been in a Glasgow pub. But yes, if it encourages some people to stop then that'd be a positive side-effect.

The government does a lot of telling private businesses what they "have to do", a lot of which is in the interest of health and safety. Mine owners have a statutory duty to protect their employees from dangerous fumes which may present a health hazard, after all.

Without legislative activity in this area we'd still have four-year-old kids crawling around under running mill looms and workplace accident statistics which would make anyone used to things as they've been since government started involving itself in these areas turn green.

Most things like this have come about after industries have been warned and given a chance to clean up their act, and haven't because ultimately it might cut into the bottom line. Publicans have had many years to fit efficient smoke extractors (you can really tell when a pub has'em) to avoid exposure to second hand smoke, but most haven't even bothered to install an extractor fan.

My libertarian ideals tell me I should be opposed to a smoking ban and that it's up to non smokers to avoid putting themselves in smoke filled environments if they want to avoid smoking related illnesses. But my libertarian ideals also say that we shouldn't force employees to breath smoke at work. I can't help thinking that there should be some way to protect employees without banning smoking entirely (eg. use of extractor fans, only allow smoking in a separate room that employees only enter when not in use + when it's been properly ventilated with clean air).

But personally, I'm glad that pubs will become non-smoking. I rarely go to pubs because of (a) the drinks' prices and (b) the smoke. When they're non-smoking I'll probably go more often.

I do hope that the ban on smoking indoors doesn't result in the smokers taking over the pub garden in the summer.

I also wish they'd banned smoking outside when in a queue or at a bus stop. I cannot avoid being at a bus stop if I want to get home, yet I've no effective way to avoid the smoke.

I also wish they'd banned smoking outside when in a queue or at a bus stop. I cannot avoid being at a bus stop if I want to get home, yet I've no effective way to avoid the smoke.

Just have a prolonged and dramatic coughing fit whenever someone lights up and they're upwind of you.

D

I do that *anyway* - and it's normally real coughing, rather than extra special dramatic coughing. Maybe that's the problem.

I also wish they'd banned smoking outside when in a queue or at a bus stop. I cannot avoid being at a bus stop if I want to get home, yet I've no effective way to avoid the smoke.

You could move :)

Eating in smoke-free atmosphere

...and drinking and dancing and so on. When Fin was in England we could hardly go out anywhere because of everywhere being smoky (she has asthma).

and what about this (http://syndicated.livejournal.com/lightfoot_links/179737.html)?

Does he really think inviting a friend into his house is inviting the public in? Or does he mean he does things like the exhibition open house thing that some of Cambridge's artists sometimes get involved in? It must be the former since he states every normal house counts - in which case I think he must be wrong, though I'd be interested to see proof.

And I don't think your house becomes someone's "place of work" just because they're fixing your phoneline. Even if it did it would presumably only apply while they were there.

I don't see how one differentiates where the private members club is concerned. If these rules apply to them, then they must apply to your house.

The place of work section presumably does apply if you're primarily working from home. I'm not sure about the other part.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how correct he is. But if it's a possibility, and something that they're "never going to enforce", then I don't like the sound of that at all, especially with this government. They have a track record of going back on this kind of thing...

I think Chris' point is that it's very broadly drafted; the magic word is "premises". "Premises where a person has his home" is listed as one of the categories that may be excepted. Premises definitely includes tents (12.1). "Vehicles" seems to include private vehicles, which makes sense as most public transport and taxis has been smokefree for a while. Additionally section 4:

"The appropriate national authority may make regulations designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2."

I've not yet worked out who this means by "authority". It's part of the general trend of arrogating large chunks of potential power from Parliament and moving them to Statutory Instrument or executive Order.

Personally, I prefer it, and think the time is now right for it, but it's clearly the last step before a total ban on smoking everywhere. I'd give it 10-15 years before tobacco is a class C drug.

I'd give it 10-15 years before tobacco is a class C drug.

That would at least move in the direction of greater consistency.

On a side note, I have been thinking of giving up smoking. However, this ban infuriates me so much it actually makes me *want* to continue to smoke in pubs.
Don't want an argument, just observing :)

For anyone who thinks that a smoking ban will affect trade in pubs or reduce the number of people going out, the Irish smoking ban has found that these fears there were entirely unfounded there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3763471.stm

I commented on this (http://infinitarian.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_infinitarian_archive.html#112411638328079812) last year on my blog. I think it's intrusive, patronising and unnecessary, and (while for the sake of honesty I clicked "Well... a bit"), I really don't think of myself as a smoker.

Should add that, thanks to my miserliness in not paying HaloScan for permanent archiving of my comments, the rather lively argument which ensued has now been dissipated on the cyber-winds. The point about bar staff having to work in smoky environments was made, though, and my response was that working in a pub isn't actually compulsory, and that people enter such work aware of the conditions it requires.

Further discussion turned up the contention that some economically disadvantaged people are unable to find alternative work, and I suggested that an adequate governmental response to that would treat the cause (lack of employment opportunities) rather than the very indirect symptom (the presence of smoke in certain workplaces).

I should add that I think that the ban goes a little too far, but only a little.

Smoking ban

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject