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 ✨
Options

no smoking downt pub.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
unless the place doesn't serve food.

sounds like a great idea to me ...the return of the traditional pub!
«134

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No food, no children. The return of the traditional pub then :)

    However I'm a bit confused about this. The government has done more U-turns than an alpine road over this. A few days ago it looked as if there was going to be a total ban... Today they were talking about smokers' rooms being available in pubs. In which case MR you would still only be allowed to smoke in a segregated tiny room.

    Even as a non-smoker I must say this is all getting silly. Fair enough if you are asked not to smoke at the bar. Fair enough if pubs are made to install efficient air purifying systems (which incidentally would reduce emissions by more than 90%). But banning smoking everywhere... Why not at least allow some pubs to be all-smoking and some non smoking?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ????
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd like the traditional pub without the smoke, but I'm biased.

    I actually wouldn't mind pubs being given the right to choose to be smoking, but to be given financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks) to go smoke-free if they wished and if demand warranted it.

    A blanket ban just encourages rebellion and arguably makes no difference to smoking rates.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Aladdin wrote:
    Why not at least allow some pubs to be all-smoking and some non smoking?
    Because they only care for money so they'd all allow it and it would be no different than today.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No food, no children. The return of the traditional pub then :)

    However I'm a bit confused about this. The government has done more U-turns than an alpine road over this. A few days ago it looked as if there was going to be a total ban... Today they were talking about smokers' rooms being available in pubs. In which case MR you would still only be allowed to smoke in a segregated tiny room.

    Even as a non-smoker I must say this is all getting silly. Fair enough if you are asked not to smoke at the bar. Fair enough if pubs are made to install efficient air purifying systems (which incidentally would reduce emissions by more than 90%). But banning smoking everywhere... Why not at least allow some pubs to be all-smoking and some non smoking?
    yes mate those windy u turns ...i may have miss heard the radio ...i thought they had decided that if the pub didn't serve food and didn't let brats in ...then you could smoke but ...it seems i may have been mistaken.

    if i'm suspected of smoking in a public place ...will they be able to shoot me?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no smoke in my eyes anymore :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No necessarily actually (re Zalbor's comments). The market would regulate itself pretty quickly, and non-smoking pubs would very quickly become very popular with non smokers, making a lot of money for the owners and encouraging other pubs to follow suit.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see why they shouldnt be allowed to ban it.

    I quit 4 weeks ago so I'm obviously against having it shoved down by throat at the moment.

    But I don't see why people can't go out with their families and not expect to have their lives shortened..

    Saying "but it's a pub" is just shite.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see why they shouldnt be allowed to ban it.

    I quit 4 weeks ago so I'm obviously against having it shoved down by throat at the moment.

    But I don't see why people can't go out with their families and not expect to have their lives shortened..

    Saying "but it's a pub" is just shite.
    so why can't we have a choice of which pub to go to?

    i like smoky pubs ...i occasionaly use and like carpeted food pubs ...fair enough no smoking but ...i think the landlord and the customers should have a choice.

    if non food smoking pubs turn out to be money loosers they'll change or go bust.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why don't we just ban pubs?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This always comes up.

    I have no problem with people smoking, but I should have the choice of whether I sit in smoking accomodation or not. I don't like the smell of smoking and it hurts my throat; my wife is asthmatic and more than once we've had to go home at 8.30 because of all the smokers making it impossible for her to breathe.

    I'm all for segregated smoking rooms, I've always said this. In the traditional pub you had a lounge and a tap room- make the lounge non-smoking, make the tap room smoking, and people can pay their money and take their choice.

    I don't like smoking, and smokers ruin my night and my wife's night. If somebody can justify why a tiny minority of people can be allowed to ruin someone else's night then I'd love to hear it. They can go outside or into the smoking room if they want a tab- the wife has to go home and go to bed if she has an attack because of what is a vile habit.

    First person to mention either "cars pollute too, shall we ban them?" or "it's my right to smoke, and I don't give a fuck about your wife!!!111one1eleven!" should go and put their head in the oven, gas mark 6 for 30 minutes.

    The point is that nearly 80% of the population don't smoke, but kicking 20% of your customers out of the door when all the competitors will gladly accept them is risky business. Few independent pubs could survive if they lost 20% of their customers, even if only for a few months until everything settled down again. Some pubs have taken the risk and gone non-smoking- the Market Town Taverns group of real ale pubs in Yorkshire for instance- but there aren't that many that could take the risk and get away with it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The call to ban smoking to ‘protect staff’ argument is one of the weakest. People have always smoked in pubs hence pub staff will be quite aware that they’ll be working in a smoky environment when they get the job. (Like someone who applies for a job in Tesco will be aware that they’ll be around food).

    People can’t really avoid buses, trains, offices, etc so I don’t really see a problem with banning smoking in these places – although I don’t see why trains can’t have one or two smoking carriages, few seem to now. No one has to go to the pub on the other hand, if they don’t like a pub that allows smoking people should find a pub that’s non-smoking or has non-smoking areas. (Interesting however that despite the supposed demand for non-smoking pubs the market has provided few..) I’ve read some pub group CAMA or something say that banning smoking will just hurt small pubs and mean more village locals getting bought out by massive super chain pubs.

    If the controlling busybodies ban smoking in pubs I wonder what it’ll be next. California has non-smoking beaches and non-smoking parks…How long before you can’t even smoke in your garden in case a whiff of smoke makes it over the fence?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually I would say it is all the argument they need and what you have just written is complete bollocks.....

    People don't have complete choice over their jobs, they have to take what is goven to a certain extent and staff should be protrected the same as they are in other jobs.

    I assume you don't care when soldiers, or firemen, or policemen get killed doing their jobs, after all they were expecting that when they signed up weren't they?

    I assume you agree coalminers shouldn't be compensated for the lung diseases many have acquired, they knew it was bad for their health didn't they?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    why don't we just ban pubs?


    well that'd be just plain stupid.

    i personally think it should be banned in public places. but then i am very anti-smoking.

    however i also think if the government want to stop people from doing it, why do they allow it to be sold?!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    California has non-smoking beaches and non-smoking parks…
    You're kidding, right???
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't like smoking in pubs because of health issues, then don't bloody go to pubs. The stupidity of that is like a recovering alcoholic going to a gin house to down it in pints, then moaning about needing another liver. I cannot believe so few people see the absurdity of this whole debate. This country used to be proud that the talons of the state only meddled in the most important matters of we the public, now thanks to stupid governments and hypocritical idiots; we have a ruling class that thinks it can dictate how we live our lives. They know better then us, you see.

    Yes smoking kills, but so do cars, and they pump... What is it, a thousand times more putrid, deadly fumes into the environment at an infinitely larger scale? Will the non-smoking busybodies make a fuss about those fumes? Of cause you won't, hypocrites.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Yes smoking kills, but so do cars, and they pump... What is it, a thousand times more putrid, deadly fumes into the environment at an infinitely larger scale? Will the non-smoking busybodies make a fuss about those fumes? Of cause you won't, hypocrites.


    Uh-oh, its about to get hot for you............. :D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes smoking kills, but so do cars, and they pump... What is it, a thousand times more putrid, deadly fumes into the environment at an infinitely larger scale? Will the non-smoking busybodies make a fuss about those fumes? Of cause you won't, hypocrites.

    Born Slippy in nonsensical argument shocker!!!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here is my prediction of what will happen. The bill was meant to be published today, but won't be as "discussions" and "consultation" is still going on. In other words, there's a slanging match between Patricia Hewitt, and Tessa Jowell, Culture Secretary, who apparently wants a full ban, not some compromise. I think they'll carry on arguing for a while before a compromise is forced out that satisfies no one. Labour pass the law anyway. I'm brimming with confidence in this government's ability to make a hash (sorry) of anything. :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    I'd like the traditional pub without the smoke, but I'm biased.

    I actually wouldn't mind pubs being given the right to choose to be smoking, but to be given financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks) to go smoke-free if they wished and if demand warranted it.

    A blanket ban just encourages rebellion and arguably makes no difference to smoking rates.


    or tax breaks on air filtering and designated smoking areas even if they arent necesserily sealed off but have to have a standard of air filtering
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't like smoking in pubs because of health issues, then don't bloody go to pubs. Yes smoking kills, but so do cars

    why shouldn't some one be able to go to a pub and not have to inhale someone else's smoke? yes, cars might kill but you hardly have the choice or whether or not a car runs you over do you!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And slightly more to the point, I have a choice as to whether I shove my head up its exhaust pipe or not.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately you don't have to go to such extremes to suffer from the effects of car pollution.

    Living in a town any larger than four houses and a flock of sheep will ensure enough cars to create harmful pollution- let alone cities.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Living in a town any larger than four houses and a flock of sheep will ensure enough cars to create harmful pollution- let alone cities.
    Technically that's a hamlet.

    And apparently aircraft pollution is even more toxic even than the car fumes we breathe in daily.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The point is that the two things are not remotely comparable.

    I live on a main road, so I know what muck comes out of cars. But I can breathe there, and I can't when some selfish smoker is blowing fag smoke right in my face.

    Car pollution, to all intents and purposes, is unavoidable in a city. The pollution also has a purpose to it- people need to move about, even if some journeys are avoidable.

    Smoking has no purpose, for the smoker or the smokee.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Smoking has no purpose, for the smoker or the smokee.
    But isn't it the only pleasure some single mums living on council estates have?

    ps Smokee? :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    ps Smokee? :lol:

    What?

    *shrugs shoulders*
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The point is that the two things are not remotely comparable.

    I live on a main road, so I know what muck comes out of cars. But I can breathe there, and I can't when some selfish smoker is blowing fag smoke right in my face.

    Car pollution, to all intents and purposes, is unavoidable in a city. The pollution also has a purpose to it- people need to move about, even if some journeys are avoidable.

    Smoking has no purpose, for the smoker or the smokee.


    and car fumes aren't that bad for us relatively, it's mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide - cars that produce nitrous oxide etc normally arent allowed on the road, and we dont breathe in lead anymore - unburnt fuel is also dealt with in the catalytic converter


    cigarette smoke in pubs stinks, is full of tar and carbon monoxide and soot all of which aren't very nice for us and puts us in close proximity
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    What?

    *shrugs shoulders*
    Would that not be the cigarette?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ALL I WANT IS FOR THE FUCKING LANDLORDS AND THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THE CHOICE...not some fucking government busybody ...is that to much to ask in this day and age ...or was that a stupid question?
Sign In or Register to comment.