86 replies to this topic

[civdef]

I've just been in Dublin, where it's banned as I'm sure you all know.

Speaking to landlords and drinkers over there I was curious to find out what they thought, what with all the talk of it happening in London. They were ALL against it, saying it had ruined trade in the pubs... and as if to prove that one bar I was in was up for sale, with the two next door up for sale as well.

Living here I perceive it differently. The ban has overwhelming public support, and from talking to several landlords, they're happier with the smoke free working environment. One of the main driving forces behind the ban was to protect the health and safety of workers - not just in pubs, it applies to all workplaces. -interestingly police station detention areas and prisons are some of the exempted locations

A number of publicans have been complaining about reduced takings, but alcohol consumption certainly doesn't seem to have dropped on the basis of the smoking ban. A significant number of smokers also took the opportunity to give up smoking.

http://www.oasis.gov...in_ireland.html

http://www.ash.org.u...landimpact.html

[Hades]

Living here I perceive it differently. The ban has overwhelming public support, and from talking to several  landlords, they're happier with the smoke free working environment. One of the main driving forces behind the ban was to protect the health and safety of workers - not just in pubs, it applies to all workplaces. -interestingly police station detention areas and prisons are some of the exempted locations

A number of publicans have been complaining about reduced takings, but alcohol consumption certainly doesn't seem to have dropped on the basis of the smoking ban. A significant number of smokers also took the opportunity to give up smoking.

http://www.oasis.gov...in_ireland.html

http://www.ash.org.u...landimpact.html

Might have just been the people i spoke to (i stayed in the hotel just round from your civilian defence place by the way )... I did notice that even in a couple of pubs in temple bar there were less people around than i might have expected, certainly in the pubs outside of the main centre i noticed they were rather quiet - only a few customers infact. It might have always been like that, i dont have anything to compare it with other than the pubs in the south-east.

The people i talked ot though did seem to think that more people were staying in having a bottle of wine/beer and watching a movie whilst being able to smoke rather than go ot the pub. Personally I don't go out as much as I used to, and think it would be less so even more if it were banned and I was still smoking... (ordered that alan carr book last night though, so hopefully i wont be)

[Bosun]

How about banning smoking outside, and on beaches? Over here we are having legislation enacted at a State level. Of course, in Queensland we spend most of our time on the beach, so banning smoking in pubs and clubs is really irrelevant...here we're banning it OUTDOORS. Most States are enacting similar bans.

"From January 1, 2005 smoking will be banned in Queensland:

* on all patrolled beaches;

* within 10 meters of children's playgrounds;

* while standing within four (4) metres of all building entrances; and

* at all sporting venues administered by the Major Sports Facility Authority including Suncorp Stadium, the Gabba, the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre (formerly QEII Sports Centre and ANZ Stadium), the Sleeman Centre, the Brisbane Entertainment Centre, and Dairy Farmers Stadium, Townsville.

Link here

[David]

I've had bizarre conversations with (or overheard at times):

'Oh I don't go to nightclubs much any more, they are too smokey'. Paradoxically, he was standing there making sure everyone else was breathing HIS smoke. Perhaps he didn't realise his own cigarette was adding to it.


Another time I was standing in a relatively smoke-free area of a pub (by design and choice). Someone else saw the small area, came over and sighed. 'Ah!' he said, breathing deeply. Honest to God the next thing I hear is the rasping of his cigarette lighter with another foul cigarette plugged between his lips. Of course he was only being very generous in making me breathe his vile smoke for nothing in the only area that appeared to be smoke free when he probably shells out a minimum of £35 a week for nil return.

[MattD]

I dont like the prevalance of the attitude "i dont do it and dont want to so ban it for everyone".

Why must the govt legislate every little bit of our lives! Smoking is a matter of choice yes admittedly but so pretty much 100% of the time is going into a smoking enviroment. If you dont want to be near a smoker then go into a no smoking pub or sit in the no smoking section in the same way as smokers must choose their rest/pub and table depending on if smoking is allowed.

To be fair i can see why smoking should be banned in an enclosed enviroment but entirely fail to see why it is needed to be banned in a public place. I dont think there is anythign to suggest that smoking in a public place provides a danger to non smokers and therefore they want it banned on the basis that they dont like the smell or sight.

Personally i dont like the colour avocado and hate the smell of CK1, do you think i could get a ban on these in a public place?

[Sailor]

............. why on earth should I have to stay at home, or away, from a particular venue because some people insist on what is essentially a selfish and unnecessary habit? Surely to God at the end of the day the smoking ban is for everyone's benefit, even smokers, if they wanted to see past the end of the end of their next cigarette.

The same logic can be applied to smokers as well. Why should they have to stay away from non-smoking places??.. This is also going to make people (prepare yourselves, new buzzword) "binge smoke" (aka chain smoke) between venues.

Let's also think about the practicality of a ban... Who is going to police it and deal with the fines?

It's not the same as a person's right to drink over another's not to since their drinking does not affect the other. As I said earlier, I don't go over to a non-drinker and wee all over them...

No you probably dont, but as a generally non-drinker, why should I put up with some drunk yob weeing on the street, in front of my house? Why should I put up with the loudish singing at 3 in the morning, or the mess of discarded kebabs near by, or the loud music that kicks in upstairs at 03.30 in the morning, or the destruction, the violence and the unease it brings to the local communities.. Or why should I live in the danger that some drunk driver is going to get in their car, and kill me, or my family?? So, let's in fact, let the government control everything in our lives and we'll even ban drinking... If drinking was banned in this country, it really wouldn't bother me.. And I'm sure if someone did some research into it, alcohol related crimes, deaths, injuries etc etc, far outweigh the never proven, assumed cases of cancer by second hand smoke.

As a life-time non-smoker I find it impossible, totally impossible, to see what anyone gets out of smoking: it stinks, it's expensive, it's harmful. Yet no one can ever really explain why they do it aside from saying: 'I enjoy it'. This again I find inexplicable. How on earth can one enjoy smoking??!

I guess, you would have to be a smoker to understand that...

Or is it really an excuse because they can't (or won't) admit that they can't give up and that the cigarette is, in fact, stronger than they are?

Ha ha ha ha..

[David]

Smoking is a matter of choice yes admittedly but so pretty much 100% of the time is going into a smoking enviroment.

Non-smokers have no choice. If they want to go into the establishment, why shouldn't they be able to without having to take lungfuls of cigarettes they don't want? At the moment there can only be a handful of no non-smoking pubs in the whole country. Non-smoking areas are of limited use because smoke drifts, it doesn't like to stay in the smoker's area. Can't say I blame it really. And why do most smokers hold their cigarettes as far away from themselves as they can?

If you dont want to be near a smoker then go into a no smoking pub or sit in the no smoking section in the same way as smokers must choose their rest/pub and table depending on if smoking is allowed.

Non-smokers have no choice. If they want to go into the establishment, why shouldn't they be able to without having to take lungfuls of cigarettes they don't want? At the moment there can only be a handful of no non-smoking pubs in the whole country. Non-smoking areas are of limited use because smoke drifts, it doesn't like to stay in the smoker's area. Can't say I blame it really. And why do most smokers hold their cigarettes as far away from themselves as they can?

Personally i dont like the colour avocado and hate the smell of CK1, do you think i could get a ban on these in a public place?

We're not really comparing like for like though are we. For non-smokers a pub full of smoke is choking and tear-producing with no escape, despite the best efforts of the air cleaners that some pubs thankfully have. With other odours you can move away to escape, no sooner smelled than gone. Nor does it linger and pervade your clothes. And oh, almost forgot, it's not health-threatening or carcinogenic usually to those who don't like it or to those who do. And why do most smokers hold their cigarettes as far away from themselves as they can?

[Godfather]

why should I put up with some drunk yob weeing on the street, in front of my house? Why should I put up with the loudish singing at 3 in the morning, or the mess of discarded kebabs near by, or the loud music that kicks in upstairs at 03.30 in the morning, or the destruction, the violence and the unease it brings to the local communities.. Or why should I live in the danger that some drunk driver is going to get in their car, and kill me, or my family??

I thought there were laws regarding urinating in public, noise, littering, anti-social behaviour, violence and drink driving? Maybe I am wrong......

[Sailor]

I thought there were laws regarding urinating in public, noise, littering, anti-social behaviour, violence and drink driving?  Maybe I am wrong......

Good reply, I like it!

But if alcohol was banned, surely there would be a decrease in these kind of behaviours!

(I know I'm clutching at straws here!)

[Godfather]

I dont like the prevalance of the attitude "i dont do it and dont want to so ban it for everyone".

Why must the govt legislate every little bit of our lives! Smoking is a matter of choice yes admittedly but so pretty much 100% of the time is going into a smoking enviroment. If you dont want to be near a smoker then go into a no smoking pub or sit in the no smoking section in the same way as smokers must choose their rest/pub and table depending on if smoking is allowed.

To be fair i can see why smoking should be banned in an enclosed enviroment but entirely fail to see why it is needed to be banned in a public place. I dont think there is anythign to suggest that smoking in a public place provides a danger to non smokers and therefore they want it banned on the basis that they dont like the smell or sight.

Personally i dont like the colour avocado and hate the smell of CK1, do you think i could get a ban on these in a public place?

I don't know where you got the bit about 'public place' and (I assume from your wording you mean outside spaces) from, Liverpool are talking about pubs, restaurant s and workplaces, all indoors. And a public place does not have to be outside does it? Bottom line, if its inside it should be ruled that people can choose. By all means have smoking and non-smoking areas, but not like Pizza Hut whi seem to think that a 4' high wooden partition will make smoke avoid oing over into the non-smoking sections!

I do understand when you say you cant have the attitude 'I don't do it so ban it for all', but such is life. We kind of have to all get on, and like it or not smoking is killing people. The other thing, smokers do tend to drop the butts onto the ground, not everyone I am sure, but many many do. This is littering and an unsightly mess, maybe they should be harsher on this too. Not many people would drop their litter on the floor, why do normally sensible people not consider a cigarette end to be litter?

[Hades]

Non-smokers have no choice. If they want to go into the establishment, why shouldn't they be able to without having to take lungfuls of cigarettes they don't want? At the moment there can only be a handful of no non-smoking pubs in the whole country. Non-smoking areas are of limited use because smoke drifts, it doesn't like to stay in the smoker's area. Can't say I blame it really. And why do most smokers hold their cigarettes as far away from themselves as they can?

That's the thing, it's not good for business to ban it outright - if it was there would be more non-smoking pubs. It's a shame, because I like the idea of everyone having a choice, which is why I think the best solution is to make it a requirement that pubs (over a certain size... some pubs are so small as to make it impractical) that there be a properly ventilated non-smoking area. Or rather, a well ventilated smoking area might be better.

I dont think a total ban is fair in the slightest, and wont be changing my mind on that any time soon.

I know from our previous chat that you have a real thing about smoking, and thats your choice, but it's not especially fair really for you to stereotype everyone... As i said before, not all of us are bad... some of us care about the non-smokers around us

[Godfather]

As i said before, not all of us are bad... some of us care about the non-smokers around us

Ahhhh, you are all heart DM

It's true, it's not fair to ban outright something that is not illegal, but its kind of the only way. If you let each premises decide, they will all have to con tinue, as if there is a choice, the busiest premises will be the smoking ones, and on a night out who wants to be in a quiet pub? Well, i often do but thats not the point. Then if they were quiet, they would allow smoking again, and sooner or later we would be back to square one.

Kind of the only solution, time will tell i guess.

[Whopper MacBig]

Smokers should be free to poison themselves if they want to.

It is however quite legitimate to use the law to stop them from posioning people in their vicinity.

[Detritus]

I think I can speak for DM as well,being a fellow social leper too.
There needs to be consideration from smokers with regard to Non/Anti smokers(there is a difference between the two) about what areas we can/cannot practice our vile coruppting habit.
From the posts we are both ok with a ban in public bars/food areas etc.
I was in New york last year and was ok with the ban there.As long as I can smoke in my back garden or walking down the road then ok.If I'm near kids or in charge of one then a nono,same for at the dinner table.

But for an outright ban driving us 'Underground' to keep up our sordid little habit,get real.

I always ask, and if it offends,I don't smoke! simple as...

[Kitty]

Up until the last year I was only ever a 'social smoker' after a few drinks. I used to hate working in a small office environment with eight heavy smokers, going home every night with sore stinging eyes. No one should be subjected to that. But other than that heavy smoke filled environment smokers never bothered me.

I am now a smoker myself, only 2 or 3 a day, and I still feel exactly the same as before. Being around one or two smokers does not bother me in the slightest, yet I hate heavy smoky atmospheres. I do not smoke in my house, nor anyone elses unless invited to.
No one should be subjected to other people's smoke against their will so this ban is probably a good thing.

[star]

As an ex smoker (gave up last November), I can empathise with smokers and that feeling of wanting a cigarette with a drink and after a meal etc.. Though for some strange reason, I now absolutely hate the smell of smoke and can really smell it when a smoker sits next to me on the underground or something.

Going slightly :offtopic: , regarding offices etc, we've had a lot of problems since we moved to our new premises (now a non-smoking building) as the old one had an allocated smoking room which staff would use.

The smokers have been told they have to go half way down the road to have a cigarette so as not to be seen near the bank smoking. This of course means they are averaging around 8 mins each time they go out, and some staff go out about 6 times a day and still have a lunch break. I know you can't stop people from having a cigarette break, but other staff have started complaining that the smokers are getting more frequent breaks than them just because they smoke.

People will always find something to moan about, but just wondered whether anyone else has this problem in their workplace?

Edited by star, 22 October 2004 - 10:26 PM.

[Kevinl03]

I am now a smoker myself, only 2 or 3 a day, and I still feel exactly the same as before.

Give it time......

[Hades]

Give it time......

Yep... also, give it a bit of time and youll soon be up to 10... 20.... 25.... plus per day. Quit while you're ahead... 2-3 a day will be easy for you in comparisson to 20 or more!

[Godfather]

The smokers have been told they have to go half way down the road to have a cigarette so as not to be seen near the bank smoking. This of course means they are averaging around 8 mins each time they go out, and some staff go out about 6 times a day and still have a lunch break.  I know you can't stop people from having a cigarette break, but other staff have started complaining that the smokers are getting more frequent breaks than them just because they smoke. 

Oh yes you can stop them having a cigarette break! People doing a full day -8 hours or whatever - are entitled to an hour for lunch and two 15mins (?) coffe breaks/tea breaks/call them what you want breaks. If someone needs to smoke and doesnt have a break due, it's called tough luck.

However, it all depends on how hard people work, if they are flat out at all other times and producing good work, you won't mind, if they just do the job, you give them what they are entitled to.

[MattD]

Non-smokers have no choice. If they want to go into the establishment, why shouldn't they be able to without having to take lungfuls of cigarettes they don't want? At the moment there can only be a handful of no non-smoking pubs in the whole country. Non-smoking areas are of limited use because smoke drifts, it doesn't like to stay in the smoker's area. Can't say I blame it really. And why do most smokers hold their cigarettes as far away from themselves as they can?

I think non smokers do have a choice, choose an non smoking establishment of which ive seen loads. Even if they cant see one they like then choose an establishment with a smoking and non smoking section and sit in the non smoking bit, its not like cigarettes produce massive plumes of smoke that fill the room im sure. I think pubs as businesess should be left to choose whether they want to run a smoking or non smoking pub and let market forces prevail.

Not sure what you mean by "hold it as far away as they can" the nature of smoking means you need the cigarette pretty close to you

We're not really comparing like for like though are we. For non-smokers a pub full of smoke is choking and tear-producing with no escape, despite the best efforts of the air cleaners that some pubs thankfully have. With other odours you can move away to escape, no sooner smelled than gone. Nor does it linger and pervade your clothes. And oh, almost forgot, it's not health-threatening or carcinogenic usually to those who don't like it or to those who do. And why do most smokers hold their cigarettes as far away from themselves as they can?

Interestingly a report was produced only a few months ago (its title and author listed in a column published in the daily mail but i cant remember for the life of me the details- the columnist is the rather annoying simon heffer) by a doctor from IIRC the British Medical Council stating that he found no real evidence to show a danger from smoking to health other than to the smoker. Ill see if ive thrown the paper out and if not see if i can find the report online.

I could equally quote though that for smokers having to be made to stand outside in the rain in almost all workplaces like pariahs and treated like babies (massive obvious health warnings on packets of fags) by agovt oly to happy to accept tax on cigarette sales is eaully as unpleasant. Im not sure what pubs youve been to david but im a non smoker (but will confess to being an on/off part time kinda smoker for a few months) and i dont think ive ever been in a pub where the smoke was so bad it choked me. Id expect the fire alarms to have gone off way before such a level.

[MattD]

I don't know where you got the bit about 'public place' and (I assume from your wording you mean outside spaces) from, Liverpool are talking about pubs, restaurant s and workplaces, all indoors.  And a public place does not have to be outside does it?  Bottom line, if its inside it should be ruled that people can choose.  By all means have smoking and non-smoking areas, but not like Pizza Hut whi seem to think that a 4' high wooden partition will make smoke avoid oing over into the non-smoking sections!

I do understand when you say you cant have the attitude 'I don't do it so ban it for all', but such is life.  We kind of have to all get on, and like it or not smoking is killing people.  The other thing, smokers do tend to drop the butts onto the ground, not everyone I am sure, but many many do.  This is littering and an unsightly mess, maybe they should be harsher on this too.  Not many people would drop their litter on the floor, why do normally sensible people not consider a cigarette end to be litter?

I must have misheard the article on the evening news as i thought the idea was to ban smoking totally in a specific area including in public places aswell as pubs/clubs.

I totally agree that we all have to get on together and that smoking is dangerous to those that do it but therein lies my point : It dangerous mainly to those that do it and unless they are directly endangering another peersons life theni dont see why we shoould legislate against personal behaviour. True that some smokers tend to drop there butts but i dont think its anymore of a problem than kids dropping maccy D wrappers or crisp packets.

[Tyler]

Smoking should be left for the outside world. Dont like walking into a pub and getting a smell of smoke etc

[Godfather]

I think non smokers do have a choice, choose an non smoking establishment of which ive seen loads. Even if they cant see one they like then choose an establishment with a smoking and non smoking section and sit in the non smoking bit, its not like cigarettes produce massive plumes of smoke that fill the room im sure.

......

Interestingly a report was produced only a few months ago (its title and author listed in a column published in the daily mail but i cant remember for the life of me the details- the columnist is the rather annoying simon heffer) by a doctor from IIRC the British Medical Council stating that he found no real evidence to show a danger from smoking to health other than to the smoker. Ill see if ive thrown the paper out and if not see if i can find the report online.
......

i dont think ive ever been in a pub where the smoke was so bad it choked me. Id expect the fire alarms to have gone off way before such a level.

Firstly, how many non-smoking pubs and bars are in your town? Certainly not seen one anywhere round here, ever. And as for a 'non-smoking bit', and cigarettes not producing 'massive plumes of smoke', do you work for Pizza Hut? They think this too! They really believe that a small partition that stops 4' off of the ground with a sign saying no smoking on the other side can prevent it from drifting over! Bizarre! Yes, smoke does fill the room, very easily. Sure, a bit pub with one smoker will not exactly be smokey, but it doesnt take too many. And as for never being in a pub where the smoke choked you, maybe not, but have you honestly never been in a pub where your eyes hurt and throat was sore? If you havent I would be very surprised.

As for no real danger from smoking to the health of anyone other than the smoker, please, give it up! Passive smoking means you are smoking indirectly, so get all the lovely ill effects from it. Sure, there may well be one report saying it doesnt, but for everyone saying it doesnt I am betting on hundreds that say it does, after all, how can it not? My Grandad chain smoked his way through life before dieing of a heart attack, my Nan never smoked once in her life, died from lung cancer 'from the effects of smoking', or so the doctor said, but then he may have been lying I guess.

And don't believe everything you read in the Mail, it's bad for your health!

Edited by Whopper MacBig, 23 October 2004 - 01:26 PM.

[Another Constable]

I don't understand it.. If the bar/pub/restaurant is a smoking one, don't go in there, or do not work there. No one is forcing anyone. It's called choice.

We go on about non-smokers rights.. What about smokers rights?

Having quit about three weeks ago, I don't mind there being a ban but I do not understand the logic of it.

The logic of it is not to allow non-smokers to enjoy their meal without smelling smoke - though that is a nice side effect. The logic of it is to ensure that people who work in those places are not subject to passive smoking for long periods. 1 bar worker dies on Merseyside of lung cancer each year due to passive smoking.

1 may not sound a lot, but it's 1 too many.

Edit: And after reading the rest of this thread, I think you are all missing the point. You're making it a choice of customers to go to a smoking venue or a non-smoking venue. This ban is not at all about giving customers a non-smoking environment, it's all about protecting the employee from having to work in an environment where they may be for 8-10 hours in constant smoke - unlike customers who may be there an hour or two.

Edited by Another Inspector, 23 October 2004 - 11:45 AM.

[Hades]

AI is quite right that it's not about customers and all about the workforce. In Dublin it's quite obvious on the signs (that are EVERYWHERE) that it's smoking in the workplace that's banned. By virtue of that smoking in pubs/clubs/etc is banned, as it's a workplace. But office smoking rooms are banned too...


Obviously it has an impact on the customers of pubs etc though...

The problem with smoking and non-smoking sections in pubs etc is the lack of proper ventilation. I keep saying it, but the problem for non-smokers in these places isn't that there are smokers there too... It's that the ventilation is very poor. A good extraction/filtration system WILL make a difference and will make a proper division between smoking and non-smoking. The law should enforce this if it wants to protect customers, not an outright ban. I can understand protecting the workers too, and im all for everyone being protected... if banning smoking in bars and clubs does that then fine, but I think that needs to be better worked out than just banning it everywhere - the office smoking room might smell a bit as non-smokers walk by, but it isnt actually doing them any harm... only the people in the room (the smokers) are actually at any risk, etc etc