lnr | Smoking ban

Entry tags:

poll,
smoking

Smoking ban

Lots of people are talking about the UK plan to totally ban smoking in enclosed public places which was voted through yesterday evening. Most of my friends list who have commented seem keen, though some have reservations. I'm curious as to what those who've not said anything yet feel. Do propogate this as widely as you like. Personally I think it's a good move, though I would have been as happy with the amendment which allowed smoking in private clubs. I do think a total ban in pubs is an excellent step. And no, I don't smoke, though I have in the past been in the "Well... a bit " category. - oh yeah and just to add I am still occasionally tempted if I'm out with one of the few friends who smoke. [Poll #673518]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Smoking ban

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: