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 ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Surely the fall of beer sales is good news and not a cause for concern.
Loads of my previously-beer-drinking mates have stopped drinking the stuff and they still go out as much as they used to. Maybe people have just switched to Coke, J20, Red Bull, Orange Juice, Lemonade... the options are endless.
In our students union we pay £1.90 for Carlsberg/Strongbow/John Smith's, £2.10 for purple (blackcurrent snakebite) and it's £1/pint Monday nights!
Hmm anyway I think it's more just people are drinking more wine and spirits, maybe more cider too.
Brown never touched duty on spirits to protect the Scottish whisky industry, don't expect any different from Darling... Although, tbh in the pub spirits work out a lot more expensive than beer anyway...But, duty on beer in pubs shouldn't go up any more. Individual pubs are one of the great things about Britain and if beer keeps getting more expensive it'll be small locals hurt the most. Wetherspoons is good and everything but we're already plagued with chain restaurants, chain shops, etc - it'd be nice if we can hold on to independent pubs.
Well the ban has already ruined the livelihoods of shisha bar owners - and it will almost certainly kill some pubs and working mens clubs.
And possibly save some people's health, as a minor point. I.e. less heart attacks in Scotland. It's always going to be an issue people are going to be able to moan about, but you have to come down on one side. Either you err on the side of the smoker and his freedom to enjoy smoking in a pub or you err on the side of the rest who frankly don't enjoy breathing other people's smoke. (And the negative health effects it causes)
I know personally that a lot of people have given up smoking since the ban - a good thing too. You can go on about freedom but say it was worse than nicotine - heroin - would you advocate the freedom of heroin addicts to take as much as they like? Possibly we don't have the most tactful approach to users but still the amount of addicts is far less than if there was no regulation at all.
The 'free society' doesn't exist and never will because every freedom you have potentially takes away someone else's freedom, so you need to find a balance. Just to be awkward, my local in Leicester has actually got more traffic now that it's banned smoking, and doesn't make it's money from barflys but screaming women playing the games and buying lots of wine
Whilst the 'traditional' pub will still exist in many places, I think we're not a 'traditional' generation and although many people still enjoy it, I think the demand for these kind of pubs is waning. The smoking ban didn't help matters, but does that mean it shouldn't have happened? It wasn't justified because it would bring more money in, but because it would help more people's health.
It is possible people have moved from beer to other drinks but I doubt price would have had that much to do on it.
hmmm but also isnt it a bit selfish to stop smokers in pubs all together?
i actually smoke these days because i enjoy it and its a way of me getting a release. couldnt honestly give 2 shits what people think about me smoking or smokers in general, and in such i accept that any damage i am doing to myself is my own fault and will have to live with the concequences. (and will have paid my fair share of taxes to pay for my medication/care)
personally i'll go outside when i need a fag, i feel sorry for the hundreds of regulars of my local WMC who no longer go because they aint fit enough to go outside for a ciggie everytime they fancied one, i dont care what anyone says but when someone gets to 80 years old noone should have the right to tell them that they cant have a ciggie when they want one. therefore, they stay away at home.
shyboy, your comment about herion is stupid because at the moment smoking and tobacco is still legal, you cant put it in the same hat.
the sad fact in heroin addicts probably have more help available to them if they want it than smokers do
I don't agree. What I'm saying is that, in 'economic terms', cigarettes are classed as a de-merit good. In that, you are likely to consume this even though it costs more than you realise, opposed to merit goods like healthcare which even if you really need, you may not pay for because you don't realise the value of it. The government intervenes with taxation, to artificially inflate the price of goods that are bad for you to reduce their consumption, and to artificially reduce or provide free goods or services that are good for you to increase their consumption.
Heroin is probably one of the most damaging drugs out there. As such it's very firmly a de-merit good. It's banned because the government realises how much damage it causes, but a user probably won't care about the damage their doing to their own health and to society with the negative external effects (such as, if they need to steal to fund an addiction, their families loss of happiness / stability, and maybe even the towns appearance if they're high in the street). Smoking is another drug that, in independent surveys, has scored very highly as the damage it causes socially and medically. However, it's not banned unlike drugs which do less harm.
I think the government is definitely picking on smokers, in the sense it is trying to 'wean' the population from cigarettes. By slowly increasing legislation, more people are stopping smoking. And more people are being happier and healthier (for not smoking). This is bore out by the facts i.e. the announcement that Scotland had a dramatic fall in the rate of heart attacks a year after the smoking ban there.
Heroin was an extreme example that we can't just tell the government to 'butt out' because a lot of the legislation they come up with does a lot of good. Free education isn't free, afterall. It's paid for by taxes. But you never heard anybody complain about it. So assuming the government is going to intervene, it needs to decide how much it will intervene. Since it either has to ban smoking in enclosed public places or not to ban it, it needs to take the arguments on balance and what will provide the most 'benefit' to society.
It appears that the health benefits outweigh the disgruntled smokers. And many smokers quit smoking afterwards as well, so the negative impact of the ban reduces further (and also adds to the positive impacts, as those who quit are likely to be healthier and thus happier as a result).
It's simply a case of benefiting the majority to the detriment of the few. And I would argue logically then that smokers who are annoyed at this are being selfish, because they would rather their individual needs as a smoker were met even if it meant society was worse off as a result. Which, ironically, is similar to the mindset of a heroin addict.
p.s. referring to the fact heroin addicts have more help, I don't know if they do or they don't, but it's one of the most addictive substances on the planet and so maybe there needs to be more incentive for them to quit. I know that there is a lot of leaflets in surgeries about giving up smoking with phonelines, you can see your GP, there are alternatives and so on. Nothing is a one stop cure to the chemical addiction though and they can only provide support. But like you, many smokers say they enjoy smoking. (Although according to what I have read, this is because the chemical rushes trick your body into thinking it's a good thing. Something like you crave nicotine so feel bad, then when you get it you don't feel so bad so your brain says nicotine = good. When people have NLP or hypnotism the therapist will basically reprogram you to see smoking as a bad thing)
Maybe...
Not at all. It is perfectly possible to accommodate smokers and non-smokers, it's done in Germany and Spain. Simple: ban smoking in clubs, restaurants - and in pubs/bars allow smoking in separate rooms. With decent ventilation and separated areas non-smokers can be protected. A civilised society does not force elderly people in their 80s out of a working mens club into the freezing cold so they can light up..
I support the legalisation of drugs...
Tbh if everybody quit smoking the government would be fucked and everybody knows it. The cost to the NHS of smoking is a fraction of what tobacco makes in taxes... Imperial and BAT, two of the biggest cig companies in the world are also British.
The ban has helped me give up and that's a good thing for me. If the government doubled the cost of alcohol I'd drink less and that would be a good thing for me too. If the government banned kebabs we'd all be healthier too. Where do you stop? (No matter how drunk, I personally don't eat kebabs in this country...)
I've always found a cigarette with a pint is absolutely essential. Not quite as essential when you have a glass of wine or spirits... maybe that's the reasoning behind it.
More likely, however, that loads of people have stopped going to the pub as regularly. Plus they're interrupting their drinking time to nip outside when they are in the pub, probably makes consumption slower and means they drink less in total in the duration of a pleasant evening out. I know most of my friends back in Newcastle go out far less these days, could be the economy, could be a health kick but I'm pretty sure it's the fact that they have to go snoutless or freeze their bollocks off. I'd sooner stay home with my feet up and an ashtray on my lap, too
Yea, everything has to be taken sceptically. But it was an example of some of the potential health and social benefits of banning smoking in public spaces.
I agree, there should have been more compromise, especially for the shisha bars. I think the government has moved too quickly without thinking it through 100%. However, having considered this, on balance I still believe the situation we're in where the potential health benefits may remain and increase for many years outweigh the costs.
I support the reclassification of drugs, but not the legalisation across the board. I think heroin etc. should be available on prescription for addicts, and I think drugs should be regulated, but I'm not sure about opening the markets to let anyone sell them. It does increase drug dependency and increases other undersirable crime as it's often criminal elements that transport the drugs, and if they're doing business in drugs in the UK they're gonna start doing protection etc. too (not that it doesn't already happen, but to a greater extent).
I'm not sure about the UK being fucked if people stopped smoking however. I do know that cigarette taxation revenue is around 8x bigger than the estimated cost to the NHS of smoking in health problems, however I think the increase in taxation is designed to be a deterrent rather than identically reflect the cost.
As far as I'm aware the UK / government makes the vast majority of it's money through financial dealings in London and other services. Not many people I know work for a cigarette factory, compared to those working for banks or other firms as economists etc.
I don't know. It has to be a balance of reasonable freedom but where it doesn't impact on others significantly. For example, drinking can and is a social activity and the first drink you have of the evening may have a value to you in letting your hair down, relaxing, which outweighs the £3 or whatever you pay for the pint. Of course the true cost is hidden because if you've had 10 pints, it's cost you £30 but you might end up stomping over someones lamborghini (someone actually did this, was in the news lol). Or more likely, just urinating in the gutter. I can't remember the number but a significant amount of A&E entries are alchohol related. So it needs to be curbed when people are binge drinking and the cost to society is far exceeding any benefit they're receiving (in fact, if you've drunk 9, what benefit at all are you getting from having another pint? At that point you're just so drunk you're drinking for the hell of it - good reason why human's aren't rational thinking people which underpins economic theory lol).
But I think people should be allowed to smoke, and drink, and eat kebabs, but there needs to be some limits imposed because many people don't limit themselves. Banning things outright often does more harm than good for example if nobody in the UK could smoke anymore those who do derive benefit from it the most (lets pretend it's relaxing and acts as a painkiller to someone with a chronic illness i.e. cannabis) will lose out. But for the majority i.e. social smokers they're probably not deriving as much benefit as that and if they accounted for other problems would be better off giving up.
If certain premises with certain provisions (for instance, a segregated room with no staff on it where people can smoke) had been allowed to have smoking within them, some people who no longer go out for a pint would still be doing so.
Saddest part is that a lot of the people who have ceased to go to the pub since the ban are likely to be old timers whose only distraction (and in some days, I suspect, only reason to leave the house) was a fag and a pint. It's hard enough to freeze your nuts off while having a fag outdoors when you're in your 20s. The prospect must be unbearable for senior citizens.
I love the argument that someone made earlier, that people can now go on a night out without risks to their health......well except for drinking large amounts of poisonous substances.
I was weighing up relative health benefits. If people are breathing in less smoke fumes then their health will be better. I didn't say 'without risks to their health'. In fact on other threads I've pointed out the problem with alcohol abuse in britain and brought attention to the fact that nobody here with a few exceptions can go out on a night without drinking.
Regardless, breathing less smoke fumes is better for you.
Not really. People drinking less beer doesn't mean people are drinking less nor does people drinking less in pubs. The gap in the cost between drinking at home and drinking out has got a lot bigger...
I'd agree with that, but I don't think that the smoking ban has anything to do with it.
The consumption has been in a prolonged downward trend since 1979. Owing to the way percentage decreases are worked out, a 7% reduction now is likely to be less of a numerical reduction than a 2% decrease was in 1979.
If pubs were suffering financially the BBPA would have said so; if turnover was down 7% they'd have said so. They didn't, so I can only assume it has remained constant.
Good pubs are still thriving; real ale consumption is on a prolonged upward trend. What has happened is that people have swapped Carling for Magners, or for rose wine.
Yes, I supose it could be seen as selfish stopping smoking in pubs altogether... however... there is not one place I went in before the smoking ban that had a designated 'smoking area' which didn't smell of fags as soon as you walked in the door... always thought it was a stupid concept as the smoke doesn't stay in the designated area anyway. So for the good of people's health, over all I reckon banning it is a better selfish act then smokers stubbornly not caring who breaths in their unfiltered stink. No one is stopping smokers from smoking altogether so no one is taking away your rights to use you medical taxes - but they're trying to lower the amount of people who aren't smokers and who don't want health complications from breathing in other people's cigarette smoke.
There are always two sides to every story and sometimes people end up suffering from decitions like this... like the old men who won't go socialising because they're too attached to their old habbits.
Just the way it is I'm affraid. The ban has happened, now it's time to let it go.
We're not talking about just a section of the pub where you aren't allowed to smoke like the old non-smoking bit. Talking about a entirely seperate room where you have to go to be able to smoke, as mentioned by Aladdin above.
I know i'm a lot less likely nowadays to just stop somewhere for a quick pint or two, mainly cos i can't be arsed freezing my arse off in the cold. I definately wouldn't bother going to any of the cheese nights i went to at uni if i would have ahd to go outside for a smoke.
I know some of my mates don't bother going to clubs like Koko anymore, what with the queues for smoking, and no exit at all after 2-3am.
Also this statistic about the fall in beer sales, well duh in the 70's the only real alternative was babycham or a sherry! There have been no real innovations in the beer industry barring the influx of international beers. Cider sales have taken such a huge slice of the beer market, for example the pub I work at 2 years ago used to order no bottled cider now we go through over 250 cases of it, proves it's point there methinks.
Before the ban came in, the committee was discussing what to do about the anticipated drop in regulars / members who occasionally came in. However, the drop never really came. This might be to do with the nature of the club though - men would generally turn up with their wives, particularily weekend days and evenings - their wives often being non smokers, or the husbands being non smokers whilst the wives were smokers. This generally meant you had a subgroup of people who spent most of their time outside most of the night, coming in to buy their wives a drink now and then, while the group of non smokers would sit together and have a chat. However, a lot of the virtually daily regulars who smoked would turn up once or twice a week after the ban, mostly at the weekend, and would tell me and their friends how they spent the time they would usually spend at the pub having a few cans and a smoke at home - which is why I think the smoking ban hasn't necessarily caused a reduction in drinking, but has shifted a proportion of trade away from licensed premises to off licences and supermarkets where they can buy alcohol to consume at home.
Aladdin mentioned the smoking ban having gone too far: I would agree that the measures taken were very drastic given that there wasn't even a single practical attempt to trial things such as segregated / ventilated smoking etc - merely discussion, but I would say that the blanket ban has been brought on by a certain type of inconsiderate smoker - the kind who would gladly smoke at the bar, blow smoke in the face of anybody who graced their presence, light up without asking permission in a non smoker's car and generally act in an inconsiderate manner. Had all smokers (and I would class myself as a considerate smoker) been conscious of their actions while smoking, the ban would have probably been less severe in my opinion.
No, it hasn't.
I'd wager you're a lifelong non-smoker with that attitude. Yes, some smokers are inconsiderate. But there is no bigger proportion of rude and self-centred smokers than there is of non-smokers. Difference being the way their rudeness is manifest, I suppose.
Of course, now it's "if you don't like our blanket ban, fuck off." Much better and entirely reasonable :thumb:
There's no denying that the smell of pubs is no more pleasant these days. Chip fat, cheap perfume and B.O sets my heart all aquiver!
thats very true. Ive havent been much of a pub goer for years, partly cos theyre too smokey, but the other day i went in a wetherspoons for a cheap lunch and left pretty quickly all the same as it stunk of weird other things that would have been masked by the smoke before. just smelled of the great unwashed :yuck:
Of course the horrid peopley smell isnt as likely to give me cancer, but i still didnt wanna sit around it.
I'd agree with that, but it misses an important point.
Even the most considerate smoker in the world is still pumping my body full of fumes that give me asthma and give me cancer.
It's not about consideration. Smokers can't help it; it doesn't make them bad people, but my asthma and your smoking are incompatible.
And when it boils down to it, you standing outside for 2 minutes is not as big an inconvenience as me having to stay at home.