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.
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
i agree that letting the landlord of the pub decide would have been a better decision.
What type of smoking ban should be introduced?
Total ban 79.45%
Partial ban 11.78%
No change 8.78%
21124 Votes Cast
Obviously not indicative or representative.
Ilora x
It’s telling how nobody who favours this ban has put forward a decent argument. On this thread I think this childish delight at a gross infringement of civil liberties epitomises the weak defence of this absurd legislation. Meanwhile MPs and such backing this ban used the same repetitive arguments.
They claimed it’s to ‘protect’ staff.
- Given that even pretty conservative estimates predict that this will hurt pubs and clubs financially redundancies if not the odd closure are going to happen. Yeah, talk about protecting staff. And since everybody that works in a pub, club or bookie were perfectly aware before they got the job that they’d be working in a smoky environment if it was that much of an issue they should have got a job elsewhere.
They claimed it’s to ‘protect’ public health.
Well there are all sorts of other obtrusive measures that could ‘protect’ public health – although I presume they won’t be enacted. How would people feel about limiting the amount of alcohol one can purchase in a day? It would protect your health, decrease the burden on the NHS and save police resources surely as binge drinking would decrease? Actually I’d better stop suggesting new ideas for the interfering do-gooders. Oh and seriously – what about the public health of people in the same house as a smoker? If you can’t have a cigarette and a drink after work at the pub people will stay home – putting children at risk. Going to the pub is a choice. Children don’t have that choice in the home.
It undermines my belief in democracy when the democratically elected chamber the House of Commons makes such poor decisions and consistently the House of Lords displays common sense in questioning the idiocy of the lower house. I expect it’ll be the same here.
I hope that you don't drive a car, then, considering how many toxic fumes come from your exhaust.
BTW The chances of contacting lung cancer from second hand smoke are minimal. Just to continue with the car analogy, you are more likely to be killed in a car accident.
I don't dispute that cars are useful. Thing is very few people actually need a car. We have designed the world we live in around the fact that we have them.
You might want to consider why we cannot design a world where smokers exist. There was never anything to stop smoking bans in public spaces, only the will of landlords/restauranters to make the decision. They chose not to. That was democracy in action.
Now no-one has a choice. Even if everyone in a pub is a smoker, all the staff, all the punters, it doesn't matter. They cannot choose to smoke in their pub. That is infringement of civil liberties.
That you do not like smoking makes you accept it. I pray that you never have to face up to losing a liberty which you hold dear, because you have just lost the right to argue against it.
Can't say I really care though. I work in a bar sometimes and it's non-smoking anyway. I have noticed that practically all bar staff are smokers though, so obviously the smoke puts non-smokers off getting a job (used to work in a smoking bar - hated it). Probably would've been better if the government offered incentives to landlords to go non-smoking rather than forcing them (Wetherspoons were in the process, and we all know that as soon as they do something, everyone else follows). If they'd banned it in places that served food, then most would've kept the food going cos profit margins on food are huge. Looking forward to seeing it enforced in clubs......should be fun.
the majority of people in this country do not smoke, i think if we had a vote/referendum on the ban, irt would be sucessfull, if you had the referendum just within people who go into these environments, then the results would be slightly more skewed
the two groups are two totally different kettles of fish
personaly i welcome it, civil liberties might be hetting crushed at the moment, bu id rather a civil liberty [which allows yourself and others around you to be poisoned] be banned to make an improvement, than anythign else the government could do
How would I GIVE you lung cancer ? Do you know something I don`t ? Do you consider me a benevolent Santa ? Are you presupposing that I have it to give ? And if I was in possession, are you telling me it is a virus ?
BTW what is a standard Nazi ? (Perhaps it is a person who gives lung cancer to others) ? :chin:
Maybe your love for "legislation" causes you to invoke Godwin`s Law ?
Fair point. However, you're not inhaling the crap they put into their own bodies, so the only person who gets affected by alcohol physically is the drinker. (Who may or may not be an alcoholic)
Any health conscious people can suck my cock tbh!
I don't drive, no... i cycle for now, though chances are I will learn... The thing about a car exhaust is that it is not sitting in an enclosed building right next to other people when they're inadvertantly inhaling it...by all means go outside for a smoke, i don't mind as long as its not affecting me...
Someone said passive smokers have no arguements in this thread? The smokers are going with the civil liberties arguement, we're going with the 'you're damaging our health and still dont give a fuck' arguement... anyway here's some passive smoking facts as you don't seem to realise its a problem for people past the discomfort / rough smelling clothes...
link
edit.. that last bit was directed at disillusioned not man of kent
Facts? That link points to some people`s OPINIONS based on statistics that they have studied. Did you post the wrong link ?
:yes:
Of course, if it doesn't, then theres still no call for using force to get you what you want.
Because no one actually gives a shit enough to put their hand in their pocket to pay for the more expensive beer a non tobacco establishment will have. The market tends to give people what they will really go after, and not what they say they want.
Fact is, all the people who want a non smoking pub weren't willing to pay for it themselves. So they are either liars or idiots or both.
Also theres no free market in pubs or anything else, as we live in a collectivist, communist, statist "country."
*pats klintock on head and phones the Maudsley*
Abolition of private property - check
Heavy progressive tax - check
Aolition of all right of inheritance - almost check
Confiscation of all property of rebels - check
Centralisation of credit in a central monopoly - check
Centralisation of transport - check
Extension of factories etc - check
Equal liability of all to labour - ha! check
Combination of agriculture with industry, gradual elimination of distinction between town and countrysid - check
Free "education" for all in public schools, combination of education with industrial production - check
We aren't that far off, are we?
You really are quite mad.
Not really. Congestion charging and high car tax isn't a ban, it's simply making driving more expensive and a luxury, if only in certain areas.
I like smokeless pubs, but I'm happier to vote with my feet (luckily I have a decent chain of pubs that're smoke-free near me) or for individual pubs/companies to ban it, than for the govt to blanket ban it.
Your denying that thoe things are in place?
Why should i have the medical problems for someone else smoking, or the smelly clothes. I've never smoked, but know many people who do. Yes when this was all talked about at first they were against it but now they think its a good idea (well most of them do).
Its the same kind of mechanism though, putting barriers up to stop or hamper people doing it. High road tax will reduce the amount of people driving in those areas. Stopping smoking in pubs will reduce the amount of people working in pubs getting nasty shit in their lungs.
I dont see why there couldn't be a compromise though, like 'smoking booths' - I saw these at an airport in thailand (they may have them elsewhere, not sure though) where hte whole airport is non smoking, but there are these glass rooms with windows in that smokers go in and have a cigarrette.
Whilst im completely against smoking, smokers are addicted and however they started smoking, then banning them from smoking altogether is a form of prejudice against smokers, who imo fall into the same area as alcoholics or anyone who depends on a substance (with varying degrees of severity of course though).
The reason tehre was never no smoking clubs and pubs before was because people go out as groups, and chances are one of them smokes, so going to a no smoking club wouldnt be ideal for them.
I think in the future when a much smaller percentage of the population smoke then this kind of legislation is fair, but when a large amount of people depend on it to stop them going... i dunno what happens to smokers when they dont smoke. But Ive seen many get aggresive, irritable, upset etc. then total bans are just like trying to sweep them under the blanket.
What about someone who’s job opportunities are limited because they don’t like swearing and therefore won’t work in a bookies? So their job opportunities aren’t limited shall we ban swearing in those environments to make things nice and ‘fair’? Lots of restaurants do allow smoking in restaurants and I don’t think it’s a particularly big problem. To be honest this whole smoking ban seems like fox hunting; a supposedly big area of debate that everyone is getting really worked up about yet ignoring other far more important things that actually matter. The way this ban has came about however has been pretty disturbing, taking the moral high ground the medical establishment has effectively dictated public policy – I don’t really have any problem with doctors telling us the dangers of smoking and even encouraging people to give up but they’ve gone way too far this time. And I know I will certainly never donate to Cancer Research UK again; I don’t see how lobbying to infringe civil liberties is connected to researching treatment and a cure for cancer.
Why? The militant non-smokers really do come across as a bunch of cry-babies. With few pubs and restaurants going for an outright smoking ban through choice because amongst their customers the demand simply isn’t there they want the government to bribe pubs on their behalf to get their way. It really is pathetic.
I didn’t know that when Weatherspoons did something everyone else followed. To be honest I think that’s nonsense. Anywhere non-smoking Weatherspoons pubs unsurprisingly saw their takings steadily slip since they brought in a ban. Oh and Weatherspoons is crap anyway.
It will probably happen is about 20 years Id say