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
Well a smoker isn't very likely to smell their own fug, is (s)he?
I can tell when someone's been smoking because they absolutely stink, and I can tell when I've been in a smoky room because I stink too.
Similarly, I can hear my wife whistling from her asthma when we've been in very smoky rooms (and she barely has asthma now).
But none of that matters, does it? Just so long as the smokers can chuff away on their cheap ciggies, the rest of the world can go fuck itself, yeah?
And if its "wah wah wahcakes" to complain about having to carry someone home because they're having an asthma attack, then I'm just a whingeing selfish Nazi aren't I? How dares I not want to sit in someone else's foul-smelling poisonous cancer cloud?
Not that I care what people pump into their lungs (they can all go sniff car exhausts and gas flues as far as I'm concerned) so long as I don't have to smell it if I want a pint out in town. The compromise of having smoking rooms would be fine, its a shame the Government didn't choose that, but hey ho, for 85% of the population this ban will be a benefit.
Should all policies be decided by their owners, or just the ones where you think that the owners will side with a minority because no business can afford to turf out 14% of its customers to a rival?
Should pubs be allowed to decide whether, say, women or black people are allowed in? Their pub, their rules, after all. Or is that different?
A compromise would have been better (and its a compromise that I've favoured since the year dot), but Scottish pubs are still doing a roaring trade, so are Irish pubs. Pubs are going out of business because they're undercut by the supermarkets on branded lager and they offer nothing else; good pubs which offer things you can't get at home (like cask ale, plasma screen football and good food) will trundle along as normal.
Enforcing the ban will be quite easy- pubs which don't comply will have their licences revoked.
It is about rights, but its also about responsibilities, and smokers bleat on forever about their "rights" without ever stopping to give a flying fuck about the effect of their habit on others. Barely 15% of the population smoke, and its getting smaller every year, but its fine to impose smoking on the majority because its your "right" to do so.
Thunderstruck, I did read the rest of it, ta muchly, and I've yet to see a 100% conclusive science report on anything. But the ifs and buts seem pretty damn conclusive to me, and I hate to say this, but I'm inclined to believe a leading Cancer charity ahead of some bloke on a website saying that smoking's great and it doesn't hurt anyone. The same cancer-causing chemicals that go into the smoker go into the atmosphere of a pub and I don't think its a huge leap of faith to say that breathing in those chemicals won't exactly give people another ten years of life.
You are probably right that some smokers really really really don't give a flying fuck about the bleatings of non-smokers; a wild stab in the dark would be that that's what years of being hen-pecked and pitied for your perceived weaknesses and bad habits will do to a person. It is probably worth mentioning [for the millionth time] that the vast majority of smokers do so with great consideration for their non-smoking fellow drinkers etc, but of course this is a fact very rarely even acknowledged and never, ever remembered when this ole debate trundles around again.
Also yet to discover any of these supposed clouds of smoke that seemingly chase non-smokers around the room like Wylie Coyote. I think anyone with any sense would have favoured compromise over a ban, but it really is a moot point now and I can't be arsed to argue pointlessly while hearing endless clamour about how stupid and selfish smokers are. Life's too short... especially if you're a snout-fiend or are an innocent victim of a plume of smoke
Smokers get used to the smell of smoke...I never had any reaction to the smell of smoke when I lived with my mum (who's a smoker) but now smoke sets me off sneezing.
Smokers smell of smoke...sorry to break that to you!
Well, generally things aren't considered true until they've been proved. Since no link between passive smoking and any of the nasty smoke-related things has been 100% proved, we must dismiss it.
If any conclusive proof comes along, I will hold my hands up and say that I'm wrong.
Of course smoking hurts people. It hurts the people smoking and the passive smoke may also but until it's proved, we cannot believe anyone - be it a leading cancer charity (who perhaps have a certain agenda?) or someone who is against the anti-smoking witchunt like me.
A leap of faith equates to an assumption and assumptions aren't great to be going on with when it comes to debating.
Who knows, passive smoking may be dangerous but probably no more so than travelling on the tube, standing near a BBQ, living in a big city, going to the airport or any other environment where you're inhaling all sorts of noxious chemicals. Until they prove anything, saying what you're saying merely goes to highlight the kind of shit that honest decent smokers like myself have to put up with.
Very little has been proved 100%, because 100% proof is almost impossible. It's a fairly safe assumption though.
*shrug*
I'm just looking forward to not having to breathe in everyone else's smoke when I go out.
And my girlfriend complains of my smokey cum aswell. :rolleyes:
Now the smoking ban is in up here, they just reek of stale alcopops
Seriously though, it's hardly a hardship having to nip outside for a fag, and that's coming from a social smoker. It really is so much more pleasant for everybody else, if they let people smoke inside again then I"d probably end up being sick.
End of the day if you want to smoke when you're out, then for about nine months of the year you'll maybe get a bit cold and wet, and for the rest of the year there's beer gardens.
It's hardly Nazi Germany now, is it?
So? If she's sensitive to smoke she should avoid smoky pubs. Why should pubs have an obligation to make your wife comfortable?
Cigarettes aren't cheap. If I bought my favoured Dunhill Internationals or Lucky Strikes in Britain they'd cost over a fiver a pack. And if pubs and restaurants want to voluntarily ban smoking I have no objection. If they don't, you should have the decency (and tolerance) to respect their choice.
Hey, you choose to enter smoky environments. Everyone knows people in smokes in pubs - it's an ancient tradition, people have smoked in pubs since time immemorial.
Indeed. I objected to any change to the status quo but I would have accepted separate areas for smokers as a compromise.
There already exist places banned to women; they're called working mens clubs (and some of the gentlemen's clubs in London also do not allow women to hold membership). I can't really see the problem. Having been to a working mens club on a recent trip up north I can't really see why anybody (let alone a woman) would want to join tbh.
As for if a pub banned black people, if the owner wanted to - it's their private business so I in principle wouldn't object. Although, like any decent person I would choose to boycott such an establishment. And I'd guess it would go bust very quickly. (Anyway banning smokers seems an equivalent level of intolerance to banning black people).
Not true. In Scotland at least there's been a noticeable decline in trade.
I don't believe it's that low. It's certainly much higher than 15% in the people that actually go to pubs.
The Nazis invented smoking bans. (Part of the reason why our German friends consistently refuse to go for outright smoking bans).
Thanks. I'm glad we agree. I keep meaning to join Forest and I'm going to now. It might not make a lot of difference but at least someone is standing up for common sense.
Btw, is the smoking ban going to include private rooms in halls of residence at uni?
Don't see why not, it's not a public area.
I think smokers will be very cautious about this move but trust me, it'll be worth it. People don't go to pubs to smoke, they go to drink. Sure some people might stop going altogether in protest but people will still go even if it means have a ciggie outside. A clean atmosphere isn't actually all that bad plus you get to meet other smokers outside who'd otherwise be sitting at the other side of the pub.
There's a non smoking pub in Brum that does very well, considering only around 1/4 of people smoke I can't see why places should lose loads of business. In fact it could well encourage more non smokers and people with conditions like asthma to go out.
The government is cunningly bringing the ban in during the summer (July I think) so by the time people actually notice the effects of the ban heading towards winter we'll have already had it a while. Btw, in Ireland have lots of places made an effort in outdoor spaces?
That's the most sensible post in this thread. Give people a choice. This governments attitude of tax or ban anything 'bad' is crap.
And it's an injustice, whether it goes ahead or not it should be opposed.
Great. My local allows smoking everywhere (even at the bar) and it does very well. What's your point?
Out of people that actually go to pubs it's a lot more than a 1/4. And anyway that's not really the point.
If that's the case why has there been a decline in trade north of the border? And if banning smoking makes business sense why do so few pubs ban smokers completely?
Ah fuck it, I'm heading to Berlin in March for three months. I won't come back.
Sorry just a technicality - but it's childish to assume that because 86% of the population are non-smokers, that the remaining 14% also make out the same percentage of costumers in pubs and clubs.
Within those 86% you have children. Pubs and clubs do not exactly for this group of people, and I would therefore assume that the percentage of smokers in establishments like pubs and clubs are well-higher than 14% as in the rest of the population.
A lot of the pubs I were in were in the countryside so they already had beer gardens and such features. In Dublin a few places placed chairs and tables on the side of the road. Though in many cases it was just a case of standing out the back where all the kegs were stored lol.
I don't care about the pub business, maybe they should do special offers on food and drink to attract customers. Or offer entertainment. It's not my concern as I'm not a landlord or Mr Wetherspoon.
Well we don't. Which is why we're having this debate. It's our right to protest.
Yeah, well, you see, unfortunately, a lot of people do care about the pub business, especially the publicans as they are the ones who are likely to be affected most by the ban. Most of them can't afford to have entertainment (which requires a licence) or have offers on food and drink.
Whilst you may not care, some people's livelihoods are on the line and, given the rate at which local rural pubs are shutting, I can't see the ban doing them much good at all.
When people go to Germany to seek liberalism and an escape from oppression, you know something's up!
And you point is what?
smoke is not perfume it's a cocktail of hundreds of different chemicals, ...people aren't just washing their selves to get rid of the smell but to also get rid of the chemicals from being absorbed in their bodies via their skin.
If smokers chewed on their cigarettes instead of lit them then there would be no problem. That way they could do all the things which increase their risk of getting cancer without affecting the people around them.
Chewing tobacco has been available forever, so Nicotine addicts already have an alternative way to get their fix ...
If anyone actually bothered to read the regulations of what is an enclosed space they'd know venues can build their way around the problem
Enclosed Space = areas which are roofed and where less than half of the wall space is open
I wish our Bus Shelters had at least 50% walls around them.
My point is, that you have a physical problem or long overdue for a shower if your bodily odour gets that bad, or your hair is in such condition that it needs to be washed twice after smoke.
I am not denying the effects caused by smoking, merely the extent that some of you claim that they go.
Even my smoker friends tend to avoid those really smokey venues, where you can go in for 10 minutes and come out stinking of smoke.
A pub that goes bust because of the smoking ban was on its last legs anyway.
Pubs that are going bust are ones that are not desirable pubs. Pubs that serve good quality real ale are thriving, and pubs that serve good food are thriving. The pubs that are struggling are the ones that don't sell things that can't be got at home for less- the pubs that are folding are the ones that serve nothing but Carling and nitrocrap, and the reason why they are folding is because Tesco will always be cheaper.
The smoking ban hasn't affected trade in Scotland (smoking's been banned for over a year there), and it hasn't affected trade in Ireland.
Tal, given that 86% of the population doesn't smoke, if that isn't reflected in the pub trade its because non-smokers are being driven out. I know several people who physically cannot go to the pub because the smoke will trigger a serious asthma attack. And quite often it only takes one person in a pub smoking a cheap ciggie to trigger that.
It does when idiots say stuff like this:
I very much doubt that. Most of them are going under because they are free houses, often in very rural communities and as soon as Messers Greene King or Whetherspoon arrive in town and undercut the local boozer, it's curtains. And thus the smoking ban is not going to help matters much more.
Oh and here's some more evidence to show that the anti-smoking witchunt surrounding passive smoking.
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page16.asp