Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

The absurdity of the smoking ban.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Smoke ban threat to shisha cafes.

Does anybody go into a shisha cafe expecting a smoke-free environment? People go to shisha cafes to smoke shisha.

By not excluding shisha cafes the government will almost certainly bankrupt many of these businesses. A quite indefensible and callous way of deliberately destroying people's livelihoods.
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Smoke ban threat to shisha cafes.

    Does anybody go into a shisha cafe expecting a smoke-free environment? People go to shisha cafes to smoke shisha.

    By not excluding shisha cafes the government will almost certainly bankrupt many of these businesses. A quite indefensible and callous way of deliberately destroying people's livelihoods.
    Poor discriminated against hard up smokers!

    Although I agree on the Shisha cafe.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    [QUOTE=Disillusioned;1943452By not excluding shisha cafes the government will almost certainly bankrupt many of these businesses. A quite indefensible and callous way of deliberately destroying people's livelihoods.[/QUOTE]

    And the usual hyperbole to go with it, eh? They make their money from shisha do they? Oh no, they make it all from food like any other cafe. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just saying that you do no favours to your cause by claiming all this "poor business owners cruelly put out of business." There are infinitely more costly government requirements and restrictions on businesses than the smoking ban, so try not to oversell it. Any business that is put out of business by the smoking ban, frankly, is most likely to shit to survive much longer smoking ban or no smoking ban.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im no longer a smoke, however I think the smoking ban is stupid. :yes:

    Landlords/ Restauranters/ Shop Owners should be allowed to ban smoking in their establishment if they want. However it should not be a compulsory measure.

    Let the market decide how many pubs/restaurants are needed to satisfy the demands of the non smokers, but dont punish everyone.

    However back to the origional question; tuff shit if the traders of Edgeware Road have to comply with the smoking ban, we all have to so I see no reason why they should be exempt.

    Who do they think they are ? Members of Parliament :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    Who do they think they are ? Members of Parliament :p

    :lol: Although I agree. If you're going to impliment a smoking ban on health grounds, then you can't make exceptions. Argue for a landlords right to choose, argue that the health risks are unproven, but if their are health risks, then why should someone be exempt, just because that happens to be their niche?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Frankly I don't see anything wrong with some businesses being allowed to allow smoking.

    Seeing as the great majority of venues will not allow it it's not as if non-smokers are in danger of not finding a place to eat or drink.

    There is nothing wrong with venues being allowed to keep segregated and well ventilated smoking areas either. In any such properly fitted premises nobody would be able to inhale or detect any smoke particles or smell, regadless of what they might claim.

    I've heard a rumour that at least one airline that has bought the A-380 superjumbo is considering creating a smoking room. That certainly would be a welcome development and a victory for common sense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The ban is far to absolute, if a bar/club/cafe can prove that it has well laid out sections with good ventilation where the risk from second hand smoke is minimal then it should be allowed.

    That way it would be for the cafe/bar to prove it was safe for the customer, meaning most would go non-smoking but there would still be some room to allow smoking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the usual hyperbole to go with it, eh? They make their money from shisha do they? Oh no, they make it all from food like any other cafe.

    Bollocks do they make all their money from food like any other cafe. Have you ever been to a shisha cafe on Edgware Rd? You're confusing fact with what Westminster Council is claiming.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know - that's the first thing I thought of when I heard about the smoking ban - what about the shisha places??

    And yes - think it's very unfair - they'll almost certainly fold when this comes into force, because NO-ONE goes there purely for the food!! You go there to smoke, and might order something if you fancy a nibble, but there's no way they'd make enough money on food alone to make up for the loss in revenue from shisha. :no:

    So much for the government being all up for cultural diversity, ey? :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bollocks do they make all their money from food like any other cafe.
    And I suppose you have access to all their accounting records, do you? It makes no difference though. If you're making money from something that endangers lives, then "I'll lose my livelihood" is no argument. Argue against the validity of the health claims, argue against the effectiveness of the solutions, but don't argue on a financial basis because it makes no difference. I actually agree with you that the measures are far too strict, but I don't see why shisha cafes should get special treatment. How is that fair?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I suppose you have access to all their accounting records, do you? It makes no difference though. If you're making money from something that endangers lives, then "I'll lose my livelihood" is no argument.

    What about horse riding then? Arguably the most dangerous past time you can take part in, yet it isnt banned.

    Smoking is harmful, yes, second hand smoke is probably harmful (though to a significantly lesser extent) but so are loads of other things.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I actually agree with you that the measures are far too strict, but I don't see why shisha cafes should get special treatment.

    Thats my position. The smoking ban in general is to strict, but I dont see why one type of business should be exempt. What about Working Mens Clubs, than have a large proportion of their customers as smokers?

    Shame the governement didnt want to lead by example on this one though. Allowing MP's to smoke in the Commons pub is a bit hypcritical.

    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    What about horse riding then? Arguably the most dangerous past time you can take part in, yet it isnt banned.

    Smoking is harmful, yes, second hand smoke is probably harmful (though to a significantly lesser extent) but so are loads of other things.

    Yes, and it's fair enough to argue on those grounds (i.e. that the restrictions far outweigh the risk). But do you not agree that if someone is making money from something is deemed unsafe/immoral/illegal, then when discussing whether it should be banned, the financial impact on the business owner shouldn't come into the equation? I mean ending the slave trade put people out of jobs, for fuck's sake. Coming back to horse riding, is it a valid argument to say, "we shouldn't be required to provide helmets, because it would cost us too much, and put some of us out of business."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I suppose you have access to all their accounting records, do you?

    I'm presuming that you do with claims such as:
    Oh no, they make it all from food like any other cafe.

    It makes no difference though. If you're making money from something that endangers lives, then "I'll lose my livelihood" is no argument.

    Nonsense. Everytime a delivery driver steps into his white van he's endangering lives, regardless of how good a driver he is, not to mention the pollution he causes.
    Argue against the validity of the health claims, argue against the effectiveness of the solutions, but don't argue on a financial basis because it makes no difference. I actually agree with you that the measures are far too strict, but I don't see why shisha cafes should get special treatment. How is that fair?

    Common sense? It's a smoking cafe; you go there to smoke; it's kinda the point. The only valid reason for banning smoking is for non-smokers heath - something which a business setup to cater exclusively for smokers should be exempt from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, and it's fair enough to argue on those grounds (i.e. that the restrictions far outweigh the risk). But do you not agree that if someone is making money from something is deemed unsafe/immoral/illegal, then when discussing whether it should be banned, the financial impact on the business owner shouldn't come into the equation? I mean ending the slave trade put people out of jobs, for fuck's sake. Coming back to horse riding, is it a valid argument to say, "we shouldn't be required to provide helmets, because it would cost us too much, and put some of us out of business."

    What? Smoking isn't illegal - and comparing it to the slave trade is utter tosh.

    Also, Shisha is a completely different kettle of fish to regular tobacco.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What? Smoking isn't illegal - and comparing it to the slave trade is utter tosh.
    I'm not comparing it to the slave trade, I'm just saying that there are plenty of things that became illegal that people could use the same argument that they would lose jobs.
    Also, Shisha is a completely different kettle of fish to regular tobacco.
    Not according to the WHO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, and it's fair enough to argue on those grounds (i.e. that the restrictions far outweigh the risk). But do you not agree that if someone is making money from something is deemed unsafe/immoral/illegal, then when discussing whether it should be banned, the financial impact on the business owner shouldn't come into the equation?

    I just think there are far more intelligent ways of doing things than this, this is sloppy heavy handed legislation - but then I would expect nothing less from this government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nonsense. Everytime a delivery driver steps into his white van he's endangering lives, regardless of how good a driver he is, not to mention the pollution he causes.
    Yeah, well then you should be arguing that it shouldn't be banned based on it not being a big health risk, not based on the fact that some people might go out of business.
    Common sense? It's a smoking cafe; you go there to smoke; it's kinda the point. The only valid reason for banning smoking is for non-smokers heath - something which a business setup to cater exclusively for smokers should be exempt from.
    And so a pub which has 90% of customers that are smokers can't make the same claim?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I just think there are far more intelligent ways of doing things than this, this is sloppy heavy handed legislation - but then I would expect nothing less from this government.

    I agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For those interested we've had a number of questions to askTheSite's legal section from Shish owners - they absolutely expect to lose their business under the smoking ban, and will be closed down. They cannot maintain business without the reason people come there, at least based on their own books.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    For those interested we've had a number of questions to askTheSite's legal section from Shish owners - they absolutely expect to lose their business under the smoking ban, and will be closed down. They cannot maintain business without the reason people come there, at least based on their own books.

    Awww....think that's terrible - that's their livelihood! Don't think the government have thought this through properly at all..:no:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    HanHan wrote: »
    Awww....think that's terrible - that's their livelihood! Don't think the government have thought this through properly at all..:no:


    But lots of other people stand to loose their livelyhood. Thats life.

    A voulintary ban would have allowed those who want to ban smoking to do so, while allowing people like the shisa shop owners to continue with their business if they wished.

    It shoud not be about making expections to the law but about finding a better solution that works for everyone.

    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Absolutely - the law should have been better. We're not children after all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought it was already going that way anyway. More and more pubs were becoming non-smoking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought it was already going that way anyway. More and more pubs were becoming non-smoking.

    :yes: It was.

    Until the government decided to stick its nose into something that didnt need fixing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, and it's fair enough to argue on those grounds (i.e. that the restrictions far outweigh the risk). But do you not agree that if someone is making money from something is deemed unsafe/immoral/illegal, then when discussing whether it should be banned, the financial impact on the business owner shouldn't come into the equation?
    There might be an argument for illegal and immoral (none of which applies to smoking) but so long as those using the stuff/ using the premises are aware of the risks and are there out of their own freewill I don't see a problem at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There might be an argument for illegal and immoral (none of which applies to smoking) but so long as those using the stuff/ using the premises are aware of the risks and are there out of their own freewill I don't see a problem at all.

    How would making money from allowing people to smoke indoors not be illegal? It's against the smoking ban, so it's illegal. Argue that the laws unjust, just don't argue that a law shouldn't exist because people who would subsequently be breaking the law will lose business.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They could convert them to drive Thru's :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    at the end of the day I don?t see why they should get treated any different to pubs or other cafes?, if they are really that unhappy why not sell up and move somewhere that allowing smoking?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And to think, smokers would complain if you put them all in a small room filled with smoke.
Sign In or Register to comment.