A real humanitarian, excellent
The Smoking Ban - 2 years on.
- Thread starter aproctor
- Start date
A real humanitarian, excellent
Yes but if they didn't want second hand smoke then they didn't go in. Fair enough they had a choice but if they were very much against it then they would not go in. That is less people who you can sell alcohol to. Ban smoking and I would guess the market would increase. Obviously if smokers are no longer going to pubs then the market hasn't changed. However this brings me on to the next point...
Then I ask them "why?".
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
It's not.
No because smokers are forced outside on the basis of legality. Non-smokers are not forced to go inside smoke filled pubs.
I do believe that hasn't happened though.
Why drink? Why take drugs? Why do anything?
Last edited:
True but even though smoking is legal it is a harmfull product. Forcing smokers outside doesn't harm them. If anything it will get some fresh air down into their lungs lol.
I assume your first sentence referred to smokers, smokers have not been forced outside, nobody has forced smokers to go outside of a pub or any place where the ban applies. They CHOOSE to go outside to smoke.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
No, if they choose to smoke, they are forced outside. They are not choosing to go outside.
We can keep this up all night/morning if you want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Also, before the ban, if you choose to go to a pub, you were forced to breath secondhand smoke
Wrong.
Can we stop with the back and forth
Nobody was forced to do anything,
Smokers are choose outside if they want to smoke
Non smokers chose to be in a smoking environment if they wanted to go in the pub.
I think there should be choice, most people agree, the people who disagree are generally the ones who never go into pubs.
In the grand scheme a bit of fag smoke never hurt anyone (not even Roy Castle)*dons flame suit*
But seriously, you find me a credible scientific medical journal linking one death to passive smoking and....i'll read it.
Nobody was forced to do anything,
Smokers are choose outside if they want to smoke
Non smokers chose to be in a smoking environment if they wanted to go in the pub.
I think there should be choice, most people agree, the people who disagree are generally the ones who never go into pubs.
In the grand scheme a bit of fag smoke never hurt anyone (not even Roy Castle)*dons flame suit*
But seriously, you find me a credible scientific medical journal linking one death to passive smoking and....i'll read it.
Last edited:
Who exactly do you think should have a choice? As I said on the last page, prior to the ban the choice was in the hands of the smokers and non smokers could either put up with it or not go out. Now it's in the hands of non smokers, but at least the smokers have a compromise - standing outside for 5 mins is much more reasonable than not going out at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
i think some pubs/clubs should allow smokers inside but only if they have regulated air con/ventilation. total ban is too extreme in my opinion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
the only thing that is good is to have the choice completely up to the person or company etc who own the pub/bar/club
no-one is forcing anyone to be there
if i had the money and decided to buy a pub/bar i would allow smoking, i think it should be the managers/owners choice and if they choose to not allow smoking thats fine
another point, 1 pub near me had a street floor, and a downstairs, the downstairs was non-smoking, i dont see anything wrong with that?
there is a lot of other things that people would want to ban, thus the answer must be based purely out of principle, which is never the case
no-one is forcing anyone to be there
if i had the money and decided to buy a pub/bar i would allow smoking, i think it should be the managers/owners choice and if they choose to not allow smoking thats fine
another point, 1 pub near me had a street floor, and a downstairs, the downstairs was non-smoking, i dont see anything wrong with that?
there is a lot of other things that people would want to ban, thus the answer must be based purely out of principle, which is never the case
Last edited:
I think it's a great thing.
Before the ban:
Every single time I went out, regardless of what I was wearing, I'd have to do a complete wash afterwards. Obviously this isn't as much of an issue since you don't want to wear dirty clothes but when you've just washed you favourite pair of jeans (I typically wear alternate pairs for 1-2 weeks, just airing them between wears), you'd have to wash them the very next day or they'd reek!
I found I felt so rough in the morning, given my hair stank of smoke, it would come off my hair into my pillowcases and bed sheets. If I stayed around a friends place, I wouldn't feel human until I had a fresh set of clothes and washed my hair with shampoo at least twice to get the smell out - to be honest, I used to dread all these issues more than the hangover.
Now:
I can go out, wake up and worry about nothing else other than what I got up to last night and the hangover. I can pop to the pub after work and have a pint or two and not worry about coming home stinking of fags and having to wash each item of clothing every 24 hours.
Just a few nights back, I went out and was outside in a dedicated outdoor smokers area at a club here in Sydney (more palatable for the smokers given the temperatures are far more moderate here), I got up the next day and found my clothes smelt like an ashtray, and that was only a few hours in a smoking area - it was entirely my decision to go there but at least now I am not forced to do it every night.
Before the ban:
Every single time I went out, regardless of what I was wearing, I'd have to do a complete wash afterwards. Obviously this isn't as much of an issue since you don't want to wear dirty clothes but when you've just washed you favourite pair of jeans (I typically wear alternate pairs for 1-2 weeks, just airing them between wears), you'd have to wash them the very next day or they'd reek!
I found I felt so rough in the morning, given my hair stank of smoke, it would come off my hair into my pillowcases and bed sheets. If I stayed around a friends place, I wouldn't feel human until I had a fresh set of clothes and washed my hair with shampoo at least twice to get the smell out - to be honest, I used to dread all these issues more than the hangover.
Now:
I can go out, wake up and worry about nothing else other than what I got up to last night and the hangover. I can pop to the pub after work and have a pint or two and not worry about coming home stinking of fags and having to wash each item of clothing every 24 hours.
Just a few nights back, I went out and was outside in a dedicated outdoor smokers area at a club here in Sydney (more palatable for the smokers given the temperatures are far more moderate here), I got up the next day and found my clothes smelt like an ashtray, and that was only a few hours in a smoking area - it was entirely my decision to go there but at least now I am not forced to do it every night.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
I'm a smoker and don't mind the ban as it stands although I do think it should have been done differently in that initially all pubs/clubs ban the smoking but with the option of applying for a license to allow smoking in a similar way to applying for a liqueur license so long as they could maintain a clean atmostpehere ie a hint of a whiff of smoke in the air never killed anyone in the same way what comes out of the rear end of a cow doesn't smell nice but isn't going to kill you unless your subjected to its gases in a concentrated form.
Those that are suggesting extending it to the street or banning it altogether really need to get a grasp on what that means in terms of freedom in this country....it would be draconian to extend it further forcing people who still choose to smoke to smoke where?
Or maybe you'd also be comfortable with a limit on alcohol intake along the lines of max units per day/week as those that go over reasonable limits often cause a lot more nuisance to others than a few smelly clothes after a night out or a whiff of smoke as they walk past someone smoking in the street. Maybe a few years down the line the governement should then consider a total ban?
just realised that kermit makes extreme sense!.. fyi i watched something on iplayer in some town, they actually have put a limit on alcohol, made a post - office queue for getting it from the bar, where you are being watched, and your only allowed 2 drinks each... imo i think whoever came up with that should be executed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00m3zv9/b00m3zqt/Panorama_The_Truth_About_Happy_Hour/
Last edited:
Also, before the ban, if you choose to go to a pub, you were forced to breath secondhand smoke
No you weren't, it was up to the landlord if they allowed smoking in the pub, and in which areas of the pub.
Given that you have a choice of pubs, and entering a pub is a voluntary act, the decision to enter a smoky environment was entirely voluntary with no force involved.
If enough people failed to exercise their rights to push a change in smoking policy within the establishment, that is neither the smoker's fault nor grounds for legislation. legislation should never be an alternative to a failure to take personal responsibility.
Yeah I agree with when the kids are in the car...as a smoker I never smoke in the car when the kids are in, as I never smoke in my flat period, we go outside in the balcony but I do smoke in the car when they're not in. To be banned from smoking from your own car period is a tad extreme!
Banned in our own homes next......