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 guess the government cant please everyone
Go and tell that to Fiona Castle.
I'm sure she'd disagree.
MoK, you're completely right. It isn't a civil liberties issue. It's an employee protection issue.
Unless you think that companies should be allowed to provide no protection to staff (e.g. asbestos masks) because, after all, "they put themselves in the way of it".
With liberties come responsibilities. The right to shout fire, the right not to do it in a crowded cinema. The right to smoke, the right not to poison me in the process.
You can stand outside for the, ooh, 30 seconds it takes to smoke a cigarette. But why should I be prevented from having an active social life because of some braindead cunt chuffing away at Marlboro reds?
"Market forces" don't have an impact. NO company will turn away 20% of its customers without knowing they will not be missed, or not be replaced. Those bars which are reliant on family dining are good at non-smoking, such as Market Town Taverns in Yorkshire, but bars that don't do food are not.
I wouldn't have had an issue with having fully segregated smoking areas, behind closed doors and comprising of no more than 25% of a pub's seating accomodation. If the pub industry had done that five years ago, like it should have done, a ban would not be necessary.
But it's interesting- the health authorities, the trades union, and most lobbyists are for this ban. Much as I don't like the trades union, it's good to see them defend their members against a poisonous atmosphere. The publicans only care because they like to whinge, and as I said, Dublin isn't exactly a dry city with two pubs now, is it?
And to all those who are still missing the point, a poky doesn't give you cancer. The breath of someone who's had six pints and a kebab doesn't give you cancer.
What is the big deal about standing outside for 30 seconds if you're that weak you can't wait? It's got nothing to do with whingeing, but nobody has yet answered one crucial question:
Why is your right to smoke greater than my right to have an active social life? You can still go out- I often have to go hom early because of the smoke. It affects me, it affects my wife, it affects my family. Why is your right to smoke greater than the right of ten people to have a pleasant night out without having a serious asthma attack?
Why is your right to smoke greater than Roy Castle's right to life?
The right to shout fire, the right to get restitution from someone who has injured you by doing so in the wrong place and time. A ban wasn't needed.
That's also a good idea.
The right to sue every smoker in the pub for my dry cleaning bill, and the damage to my lungs.
I like that idea.
It's a better one than a ban, imo. I mean, why not treat smoke in a bar as the same as any other handling of dangerous material or chemical environment for the employee and the same as any other damage for everyone else?
Class action lawsuit anyone?
The pub chains would have soon stopped all on their own, and some non smokers would have made a few bob in the process.
And because Fiona Castle disagrees that makes you right? I’d have thought you could do better than that.
It’ll remain to be seen how this works; in clubs I imagine it’ll simply be widely ignored but if it is enforced it’ll be pretty inconvenient for smokers to have to go outside and then plead with awkward bouncers to be allowed back in. And as if a whiff of cigarette smoke is stopping you from having a social life, grow up.
Uhuh – and what about in the many places where the bulk of customers/members smoke? In bingo halls for example and many private clubs.
Tell me – if a majority support a ban why can’t there be a democratic vote in private clubs?
If the pubs brought in separate areas 5 years ago and that would have been okay – why wouldn’t separate rooms be okay now? I don’t see what’s changed.
Dublin is a big city with lots of people around and high numbers of tourists so the effect hasn’t been particularly negative there I imagine. Although from what I’ve heard in other parts of Ireland pubs have been hurt badly, however I think in some rural areas its been ignored there to an extent.
Going to the pub a few times a week and breathing in a bit of cigarette smoke isn’t going to radically increase your chances of getting cancer. Certainly, there are many other things that are far more dangerous to public health.
It’s not about my ‘right’ to smoke or the ‘rights’ of your beloved family – both are frankly irrelevant.
It’s about the right of members of private clubs to be able to decide what happens in their club - the fairest way of this happening would be a democratic vote in private clubs.
It’s also about the owners of pubs and restaurants being allowed to decide a policy which will greatly affect their business.
People that work in these places meanwhile aren’t the non-smoking saints you seem to be idolising them as, a disproportionate number of people that work in pubs and clubs smoke. It’s also undeniable that when they took the job they knew they’d be working in a smoky environment. In the same way when I took a part time job in a supermarket I knew I’d have to put up with the smell of fish working on the fish counter. Why can’t there be a vote amongst staff in every pub and club? They could vote to keep the status quo, have separate rooms or an outright ban. Oh I know - because it wouldn't produce the result that anti-smokers want.
But that wasn't about taking away a liberty. Hunts can still happen, foxes can still be killed. What was stopped was cruelty to animals.
Doubtful. But all kill ya with pollution. So THATS why he doesn't turn up.
I'm sure she's a little busy counting the cash he earned, if you get my drift. He was never forced to work in that environment, was he?
Except it isn't, and you know it. Otherwise alochol related violence would be an employee protection issue. Why have bouncers, for example?
It's a bullshit argument, in fact most of the anti-smoking ones are.
Yes, smoking is dangerous. Yes, secondary smoke can cause cancer. I don't dispoute that. But the numbers affected are minimal, and there are alternatives to legislation.
Indeed, why hasn't that been applied in this case?
You weren't. At least not by the smokers. You were prevented by the landlords.
So you are effectively arguing that businesses should fold because they didn't meet your needs, even though they met the needs of others?
You have explained why they didn't do that.
So instead of addressing the business angle, the anti-smoking lobby went for a law instead. Much easier to curtail someone lese's liberty than it is to fight for you own...?
Most lobbyists? THese would be the anti-smoking lobbyists?
But yes, health organisations are for the ban. I understand why. Well see how supportive they are when the money starts to dry up. And I'm waiting for the first union to complain about job losses too.
That argument works both ways. Why is your "right" to a smoke free evironment more important than a landlords right to smoke on his own premises?
The only thing stopping a sensible solution is the anti-smoking "nazi" approach. Pubs had started to take action themselves, but it wasn't enough.
Ohg, and you didn't hear Roy complain while he was just raking in the cash now, did you?
NB Still no comment about the drop in tax revenue then?
The fox hunting ban had nothing to do with preventing cruelty to animals. The ban was nothing more than throwing a bone to backbench Labour MPs and Labour members, a nice chance to piss off upper class toffs (and for the government to distract everybody from the real problems in this country).
Funny how few Labour MPs could give a toss about other kinds of animal cruelty. Battery farmed chickens perhaps? Dog racing? Fur coats? Live export? Not that I support banning dog racing or fur coats. I'd love a Labour MP though that pushed for a ban on fox hunting to explain why they're not doing the same for battery farmed chickens. Surely that is far crueller and since there are far more battery farmed chickens than foxes killed by hunting why don't they want a ban there? I don’t suppose it could be anything to do with Labour MPs not wanting to piss off their supermarket shopping constituents that voted for them who would hate the prospect of paying a few extra pence on their weekly shopping.
While I personally have no interest in fox hunting I’m grateful that the next Conservative government will probably repeal the ban.
It was taking away the right for people to do it in a way they enjoyed for generations. A liberty was taken away.
Again, the difference being the intent.
I take your point, though.
If a despicably cruel blood sport they enjoy gets banned- it's a war on the upper classes (never mind that every single sport enjoyed by the working classes was banned decades ago eh?). If they are told they shouldn't use ultra-gas-guzzling, highly dangerous monster tracks in urban areas- it's a war on the upper classes. Etc etc...
Please...
You have to start somewhere Disillusioned, don't you? Or do you think they should have proposed 5 bills at once, calling for the banning of all the things you have mentioned?
Considering it has taken 7 bloody years and hundreds of hours of debate to get the hunting bill through, due to the limitless obstination of certain Lords repeteadly ignoring the will of the people and the House of Common, how long do you reckon it would have taken to pass those other bills? Would have they ever been passed?
Not in our lifetime.
4x4’s aren’t an exclusively upper class thing by any means. I don’t think that argument has been commonly used anyway concerning 4x4’s. Although despite the perception fox hunting isn’t an exclusively upper class thing either.
What so in an ideal world you’d like to ban dog racing and fur? You do like telling people what they can and can’t do don’t you?
And when the Tories get back in it’s gonna be repealed.
I really don’t think you can take an absolutist approach towards animal rights. For some people killing any animal is wrong, for others it’s natural – for some hunting and bullfighting are okay and for others it’s not. For me it comes down to an issue of personal conscience. I don’t think abortion is right but I support women’s right to make their own mind up – I don’t feel the need to dictate to others on an issue of personal ethics. Although you do on animal rights. On something personal that doesn't affect other humans individuals should be allowed to make their own mind up.
Are we talking smoking or fox-hunting?
My point is that people harp on about civil liberties, but we all tend to close our eyes to the civil liberties argument if its something we dislike. Fox hunting, may be a case in point, but there's plenty of others as well, eg the right to deny the holocaust tends not to get many civil rights campaigners talking about freedom of speech because they dislike the people who deny the holocaust.
I'm sure looking at the things i agree and disagree with as well, there's plenty of times I close my eyes to civil rights.
This is the real benefit of democracy to a politician, you can let people imagine they are dictator for a day. As you say, rights are soon forgotten if theres something in it for the person they really want.
Passive smoking killed her husband.
Again, is your right to smoke worth more than Roy Castle's right to live?
It'll be ignored until the firsty publican is twatted with the £2500 fine.
Having to deal with a partner having an asthma attack because of smoke does though.
Or should we just sit at home because you've got a "right" to poison me, give me cancer, and ruin my clothes?
I don't care if the employees smoke or not, it is there choice to do it to themselves. But not all employees do, and why should employees have to deal with it?
This is all just bollocks anyway. The same bleatings were heard when smoking was banned on public transport, in the cinemas, in the office. And who cares now? Are the cinemas emptier? Are they hell.
MoK- people didn't have to work down mines, or with asbestos. Are you against their claims for compensation? People don't have to work on building sites, should we just burn the health and safety legislation and let them fall off the buildings?
I didn't hear the miners whingeing when they were earning, after all. And all those people who got asbestos poisoning well, they just loved the cash.
Seperate rooms would be fine. The licensed industry did nothing to achieve this. They've now been told what to do. Their fault, nobody else's. You're right, the pubs didn't do enough. They were given ample opportunity to.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why them smoking a cigarette indoors- when they can smoke as many as they want a few feet away outside- is a more significant "right" than the right of my wife to sit in a pub and not have a fucking asthma attack because of some selfish cunt smoking right next to her.
I'm genuinely interested in a reason why I should have to sit at home and now have a social life because my family have serious reactions to smoky environments. I've been asking the same question, and not one person has answered it yet.
I'm all ears.
Not that smokers are selfish little bastards, or anything. Perish the thought they'd need to acquiesce to someone else's rights, personal space or desires. Perish the thought that they're not allowed to poison anyone within fifty feet. It's their right to ruin evenings, donchaknow.
Did it?
Do you think someone has a DUTY to provide you with a social life?
Not that it has anything to do with club or pubs etc. Oh well. Looks like getting into the pub now will be fun, with loadsa people standing outside smoking.
No, it's down to Airlines being tight cunts who just don't give a shit. I think they were rubbing their hands together with glee when they could save cash not buying air cleaning systems.
I find it rather funny that all these smokers consider it a ruined night that they will have to stand outside for 30 seconds in order to have a cig. The poor little dears. How will they cope?
Smokers won't stay at home, in exactly the same way smokers still travel on buses and trains, and still go to the cinema.
seeker excels himself with his stupidity and inability to read a question once again. I shouldn't be surprised really.
I may be stupid :thumb: but which question was I unable to read ?
I did ask two questions directed at you which haven`t been answered.
The former was asked because you made a statement of apparent fact.I have yet to see evidence to back that up. (Could it be my ever improving stupidity
The latter question was one of curiosity on my part,based on your previous posts in this thread ?
It’s not about Roy Castle’s ‘right to life’ – it’s about owners of pubs and restaurants being allowed to decide a policy that affects their business significantly. And it’s about members of private clubs being able to decide what happens in their club. I don’t know what your fascination with Roy Castle is; sad case, he died of a rare kind of lung cancer but as MoK says we didn’t hear a word out of him or his wife when he was raking the money in.
Without sounding callous that’s not my concern. Your partner might have an asthma attack walking through London with the traffic and fumes – do you want to ban cars and buses too? Most people don’t have asthma attacks in pubs, why the hell should a private club have to ban smoking if most of its members smoke or oppose a ban simply because one person might have an asthma attack? There are pubs and bars that are non-smoking or have well ventilated non-smoking areas; there is no need to ban it everywhere.
You can do whatever you like. Find a pub that caters to your needs instead of forcing what you want on every pub, club and restaurant that is doing just fine with things as they are.
They took the job in a smoky environment, they knew they’d be around smoke and chose to take the job. If I take a job at an off license doing nights I know there’d be a greater chance of there being an armed robbery than if I was working afternoons on a checkout in Tesco. Certain things come with the job and smoking and pubs go hand in hand.
For the sake of the health and safety of people that work in pubs should we ban alcohol reducing the risk of some violent drunk punching them?
If you want to ban smoking in pubs for the sake of ‘public health’ what about children in the home? If smokers can’t have a cigarette at the pub many are going to smoke more at home – with children around? What about their safety?
If separate rooms would have been fine then – why not now? Why can’t the legislation simply request separate rooms? Why a full ban? It’s really getting quite tiresome pointing out the flaws in your argument again and again and you failing to respond to them.
Ffs. Because it’s not about the rights of you and your wife – do you care about anyone but yourselves?
Private club – you’re not a member – what right do you have to dictate a smoking ban to members? Why can’t they vote on something that’s affecting their club? Something that could reduce the number of members and mean higher dues? Something that could lead to job losses?
In a pub – it’s not your business yet a smoking ban could severely hurt the owners business. He might have to lay off staff, increase prices, maybe in some cases even close. He might like a cigarette in his pub. There’s a non-smoking pub down the road. What right do your and wife have to order him to ban smoking just to accommodate you?
Bingo halls/pubs/clubs – what about where the majority smoke? And to answer your supposed concerns about staff, would you let staff vote in every single pub and club on whether to keep the status quo, have separate rooms if feasible or go for an outright ban? Probably not because you’d lose.
I don't remembering suggesting that compensation claims were bogus.
But you might want to consider that there are no bans on mine, working with asbestos or on building sites either.
It isn't more important. And the same goes the other way.
Selfish? A bit rich.
Smokers on here are arguing for partial bans, for the right to have a place, in a pub, where they can smoke.
I'd say the selfish response was a total ban which suits only on half of the debate.
I'd happily see segregated areas, on the terms I've stated before. Separate rooms, no more than 25% of the accomodation being smoking, no access to bars or toilets via smoking rooms. That is the ideal, although even then it would fail to protect workers, who would still have to collect glasses from the smoking accomodation. I don't want to deny smokers their privilege to smoke in a pub, providing I do not have to deal with it, or catch the faintest whiff of it.
If smoking did not affect anyone else, then I would have no problem with people smoking in pubs. But it does. It affects my health, it damages my clothes- both of which are proven. Roy Castle is but the most pronounced example.
It is not up to a landlord to decide everything about his pub, any more than it is for a private members club to deny membership to women or non-white people. I don't see many whingeing about denying private clubs the right to ban women from their doors. And I know people like MoK and Aladdin would be pissing themselves in rage if shops started refusing to let black people shop there, or if the private bus companies refused to let black people ride their services.
Smoking does not just affect the person smoking. It affects everyone in that room, in that pub. That is why it is incredibly selfish, and why banning smoking in most of the pub is nothing but a good thing.
It's nothing to do with my right overriding yours. But consider this. If I ban smoking, you have to stand outside for 30 seconds, a minute tops. If that ruins your night, then you're a pathetic loser. If I am in a pub minding my own business and some twat starts blowing smoke in my face, and in my wife's face, we have to go home. That does ruin my night.
With rights come responsibilities. With the right to smoke comes the responsibility to not give me or my family cancer, to not give us asthma attacks, to not destroy my clothes.
Nobody has yet to say why the right to smoke is greater than the right for 4/5 of the population to sit in a pub and not be poisoned. I've been asking the same question for nine months, I'd have thought someone would have an answer by now.
I personally think that smoking should be allowed, in very rigid circumstances. If a pub cannot provide those, then the pub has to be non-smoking. That would have been the best compromise.
But as the licensed trade has not done this, and has made no efforts to protect non-smokers from the poisonous chemicals that smokers pump into the atmosphere, then there has been no choice but for this ban. I think the ban went a little too far, but that this situation is far superior to the one where I can only go in one bar in fifty because of the selfish twats who smoke.
Question for the smokers: do you ever to go to the cinema? Ride the underground? Does not being allowed to have a chuff make you stay at home? Of course it bloody doesn't.