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
You are right, it's bizarre. The landlord at my local won't let his wife nosh me off, nor will he do my ironing.
They aren't there to accomodate your every whim, and that includes smoking.
Way to miss the point. I fully accept that I have no right to smoke in a pub, there are pubs that have chosen to ban smoking throughout and I respect their choice. However, I also happen to believe that landlords that have chosen to allow smoking should be free to accommodate smokers. It works both ways.
Er how is that relevant?
Racism and homophobia are equivalent to a pub catering for smokers. Wtf?
How does that work?
What's the price of the cigarettes got to do with it? If I smoke Dunhills am I not 'ruining' it for everyone?
I don't have a "right" to smoke wherever I want. However, the owner of a pub or restaurant has a right to make the choice of allowing smoking on private premises.
Very few people are 'allergic' to smoke, people have been lighting up in pubs since time immemorial. If you're 'allergic' to cigarette smoke be grateful that there are some non-smoking pubs around instead of trying to destroy an ancient tradition in many other pubs and clubs.
This smoking ban symbolises a truly illiberal and interfering State, it is my hope that the Conservatives when they get in pass some legislation to water it down - private clubs at the very minimum should be exempt. Tbh seeing the tolerance of Germany and Austria in contrast to Britain's intolerance makes me ashamed to be British.
Whoever has started spouting off about pubs not having to accomodate to a person's every whim must realise that is a [flimsy] argument with a flip side to it.
They shouldn't have to accomodate solely to the wishes of non-smokers over smokers (or even non-smokers who don't mind smoking, as they do exist in large numbers despite what this site would lead us to believe!) if they didn't want to have a smoking venue, then they have always had the freedom to make their pubs non-smoking or at least segregated. Very few did, and the majority will be venues that welcome smokers until the last second before this ban arrives. That tells me all I need to know, though obviously it is a moot point now. Smokers and non-smokers alike should be able to recognise the real issue which is the fact that the choice has been taken out of the hands of the people who own and run the pubs, and they will be subject to hefty fines if they don't obey the letter of the law. That's without even touching the hugely divisive - and to me, pathetic - issue of snivelly little snitchers at every turn. Fun times lie ahead :razz:
Fuck this "rights" argument, it was boring a year ago when we had this conversation, it is just thinly veiled sniping at other people's personal choices. We all know that what we perceive to be our personal rights are going to contradict those of other people, and that some compromise is necessary somewhere. However, this is not vaguely recognisable as "compromise".
Smoking IS legal and I think people should have the right to smoke when they are relaxing with friends in a pub. How about more money on ventilation? Despite what a few have said in this thread. I don't think it will encourage many people to give up. Just fuck people off.
Bill Bailey
Exactally.
Pubs in Europe have noticed a decline in business since the ban. Fact.
And also, all it will do is mean you have to walk past those who still brave it to the pub instead of buying beers and going to a mates house for a pissup there and a smoke, they'll all be at hte door of the group of the pub, huddled round, having a fag reagardless.
Close.
Bill Hicks.
So, is a smokers' freedom to smoke wherever they want more important than my freedom to be able to walk anywhere without having to breathe in smoke?
Why should I be stopped from going somewhere just because I don't want to breathe in smoke?
Why? By not having this ban, they're taking away non-smokers freedom...
I believe the govermant will put more radical smoking laws in. They put countless adverts around warning of smoking, they have advisers in school warning of smoking, they have free help lines for giving up smoking. The price of cigarettes are going up all the time, this is another attempt to puts some people off starting and some people give up because the price. So in reality I dont just see this as another worthless law by the govermant to make money.
If people truly feel outraged by the govermant making money out of smokers, I have an idea. Lets give up smoking so that they dont make another pennie, that will show them. In the process we will lead healthier lifestyles smoke free, where ex-smokers and the original non smokers can all sit in a pub together.
It really sickens me how the victimisation of smokers has ocurred over recent years and how so many otherwise intelligent people have been completely fooled by it. People are treated as second-class citizens simply because of a legal and democratic choice that they make. Until they make smoking illegal, there can be no excuse for this demonisation of people who smoke.
http://www.forestonline.org for the people who think this is bullshit and would like the Government to stop harassing people for making a legal and democratic choice.
:thumb:
Lol I'm sucha muppet ! Yes Bill Hicks
It's a free country and you can do whatever you like AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HARM OTHERS
It's the last bit that smoking falls over on ..
If you don't agree with that then you cannot use the "my pub, my rules" argument for smoking.
84% of this country do not smoke. Why does the "right" of a small minority to pollute the air of public buildings override the "right" of everyone else to sit down in a restaurant or pub and not have to choke to death on secondhand Lucky Strike.
I'm still waiting for an answer, I notice its only the smokers who can't justify it.
A compromise would be fully segregated smoking areas, which would be fine by me, but to try and claim its a huge infringement of civil liberties to have to nip out for a fag is ludicrous.
please don't talk about lack of intelliegence in people that don't smoke.
it is fairly obvious who the unintelligent people are, clue: the ones commiting slow suicide and pissing off people around them because they are weak minded muppets......
You......................................................................................... the point
If you read my post, you would realise that actually what I was talking about wasn't that it was only intelligent people who smoke, but rather the otherwise intelligent people who have been duped into demonising people who choose to smoke by a vindictive and nanny government.
The same way the 'majority' have a right to drive cars which emit fumes several times more dangerous and carcinagenic than tobacco smoke aswell as causing untold damage to our planet. Just because it's done by the majority doesn't make it right. Last time I checked, both were legal. What I don't like is the hipocrisy. Ban cars, and I will gladly give up smoking but since the former is far more dangerous than the latter, I don't see why sitting in a restaurant being 'forced' to inhale fumes is the same as or worse than walking the streets breathing in exhaust fumes.
And people please stop citing passive smoking as dangerous. There really is NO CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it's any worse than the average crap you inhale in a reasonably built up area.
It is an infringement on civil liberties, simply because, as you point out, no effort to compromise was made. Why smokers and people who defend smokers' rights are so annoyed, is that the powers that be have not even given a thought to trying to reach a compromise so that both parties are happy.
I'm still to hear a single valid reason why smoking-only pubs should not be allowed. The only possible issue is the wellbeing of employees. And if they are smokers themselves, fully aware of the alleged risks of passive smoking and still willing to work in the pub in question, that becomes a non issue as well.
If you are concerned too many pubs might become smoking pubs, then let's introduce a quota that ensures the majority of pubs remain non-smoking. But there isn't a single credible argument against some smoking pubs existing.
I don't think many (or even any) smokers are saying otherwise are they?
Their voices or protest appear to be about those who claim smoking should be banned outdoors (LOL x 94,000,000) or that smoking should not be allowed anywhere indoors, not even in pubs are that specially designated for smokers, or in segregated areas of pubs/restaurants completely sealed off from non smoking areas.
Good post. :yes:
Do you think that people should be able to do anything that is dangerous to their health as long as they are aware of the risks?
Should shops be able to sell food that is off and cut prices?
Not especially. It's simply a question of where you draw the line on landlord freedom, its the exact same principle.
Either you believe in the free right of landlords to choose what goes on in their pubs, and who goes in them, or you don't.
To clarify my stance, I am in favour of a compromise. Pubs should be allowed to provide smoking accomodation providing that you do not need to cross through the smoking section to go to the toilets, exit or bar, and providing that the majority of accomodation in the pub is non-smoking (I'd propose at least 60% of the accomodation should be non-smoking). Venues (including concert halls and clubs) that cannot provide fully segregated smoking accomodation should be non-smoking throughout. Staff should be allowed to refuse to work in the smoking section. I think that would be a good compromise- I honestly don't care what people do to themselves so long as I don't have to breathe it in.
Given that less than one in six adults smoke, I don't see a reason why non-smokers should be left with a choice of "breathe in my crap or piss off", which is what the current situation is in many pubs and restaurants. Put the smokers in their own room, away from me, and I don't care about them smoking whatever they want.
People trying to ban smoking outside are idiots.
Of course not.
Like I said in the post above, I'm perfectly at easy drawing a line somewhere. Allowing a pub landlord to run a smoking pub is acceptable. Allowing him to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation etc or to have filthy beer pipes and ignore food preparation rules is unnaceptable.
I agree with all that.
Rubbish. The world isn't that black and white, and you know it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/2/newsid_2493000/2493567.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle