why the smoking ban ??? Well here's a few for starters.........
1) A pint & a fag go togetherr like meat & veg. If you can't smoke in a pub, where the bl***y hell are you going to ? If you are out with a group of friends on a saturady night and 2 or 3 of you smoke and the other 2 or 3 don't, what do you do. Keep having to pop out the pub every 20 mins to carry on the craik/banter etc or end up missing parts of it beacuse you do/do not smoke. totally illogical (esp in this country when half the year it is either too cold or too wet to stand outside)
2) if they can ban smoking in pubs, then they can ban drinking in them too. mark my words. We took this one without a fight and in 10/20 years time it will be no different. Reasons then will be...a) health , b) safety (no drinking=no drunks=no fights) etc etc.
3) the smoking breaks smokers get. do non-smokers get the same?? . I really wish I worked in an office block where my colleagues nipped out for a smoking break - just to join them also. I would love to see a WHOLE office standing outside , milling around doing nothing 4 or 5 times a day for 10 mins a-piece. It won't happen beacause most of you are so apathetic its untrue.
All this comes from a non-smoker. Also, 20 years ago I worked in an office with a couple of smokers. we moved premises & the new office came with a total no-smoking zone. No-one told us this before we moved buildings and on the first day in the new place the smokers idn't know what to do. It was agreed that they wopuld be alllowed a ciggy break every so often - I actually said that i would go on strike on their behalf to allow smoking at their desks as I thought it was a freedom of liberty to stop them smoking. That wasn't allowed so about every hour or so 1 or 2 nipped outside (only about 50 yards from their desks) to have a fag. The result - they had a 10 minute break from the pressured environment we were working in and the rest of us had to do their share of the work as well as ours.
Therefore , I urge all you non-smokers to join your colleagues when they nip out for a fag at work, or are 5 mins getting back to their desks after lunch beacuse they had to finish of that ciggy. I would love to see the City of London come to a standstill 5 minutes every hour if all the workers left their buildings for a fag break - night change a few minds to the benefits of a smoking ban !!
[cite]Posted By: golfaddick[/cite]why the smoking ban ??? Well here's a few for starters.........
1) A pint & a fag go togetherr like meat & veg. If you can't smoke in a pub, where the bl***y hell are you going to ? If you are out with a group of friends on a saturady night and 2 or 3 of you smoke and the other 2 or 3 don't, what do you do. Keep having to pop out the pub every 20 mins to carry on the craik/banter etc or end up missing parts of it beacuse you do/do not smoke. totally illogical (esp in this country when half the year it is either too cold or too wet to stand outside)
2) if they can ban smoking in pubs, then they can ban drinking in them too. mark my words. We took this one without a fight and in 10/20 years time it will be no different. Reasons then will be...a) health , b) safety (no drinking=no drunks=no fights) etc etc.
3) the smoking breaks smokers get. do non-smokers get the same?? . I really wish I worked in an office block where my colleagues nipped out for a smoking break - just to join them also. I would love to see a WHOLE office standing outside , milling around doing nothing 4 or 5 times a day for 10 mins a-piece. It won't happen beacause most of you are so apathetic its untrue.
All this comes from a non-smoker. Also, 20 years ago I worked in an office with a couple of smokers. we moved premises & the new office came with a total no-smoking zone. No-one told us this before we moved buildings and on the first day in the new place the smokers idn't know what to do. It was agreed that they wopuld be alllowed a ciggy break every so often - I actually said that i would go on strike on their behalf to allow smoking at their desks as I thought it was a freedom of liberty to stop them smoking. That wasn't allowed so about every hour or so 1 or 2 nipped outside (only about 50 yards from their desks) to have a fag. The result - they had a 10 minute break from the pressured environment we were working in and the rest of us had to do their share of the work as well as ours.
Therefore , I urge all you non-smokers to join your colleagues when they nip out for a fag at work, or are 5 mins getting back to their desks after lunch beacuse they had to finish of that ciggy. I would love to see the City of London come to a standstill 5 minutes every hour if all the workers left their buildings for a fag break - night change a few minds to the benefits of a smoking ban !!
1. If it is true that “A pint & a fag go togetherr like meat & veg” –, how would you deal with vegetarians – deliberately put meat on their plate and force them to eat it? What if for some of us a pint and a fag go together like an asthma attack? Does that mean that those people should have to stand outside to “carry on the craik”. Now that you can’t smoke in a pub the answer to your "where" question is, in the privacy of your own home like any other grubby habit.
2. No we didn’t take it without a fight, we voted for it! It was Labour policy before the election and still they got a majority – so it can’t be that unpopular can it.
3. I don’t understand the relevance of this to your argument. Sure smokers got away with extra breaks for years, so what?
You are talking of “a freedom of liberty” for smokers to smoke in public, but I am talking about a habit which kills 114,000 UK citizens every year. Elsewhere on this board are threads which rightfully condemn the recent spate of stabbings and other violent incidents, yet this is nowhere near the level of the 300+ people who are killed every day in this country through smoke; “freedom of liberty”, you’re ‘avin’ a laugh!
2. No we didn’t take it without a fight, we voted for it! It was Labour policy before the election and still they got a majority – so it can’t be that unpopular can it.
No we did not vote for it. Labour's policy was to allow smoking in bar/restaurants that didn't sreve food. Also private clubs were to be allowed to choose.
They changed to a 100% ban after the General Election.
I am a non-somker, have been for 43 years and I think it's wrong. Each area should be allowed a designated smoking pub.
Each area should be allowed a designated smoking pub.
...........
It's impractical to have a designated smoking area if the pub is open plan, however the compromise in use in Germany makes some sense - if a bar has two separate rooms then one can be a designated smoking room, the other smoke free.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Each area should be allowed a designated smoking pub.
...........
It's impractical to have a designated smoking area if the pub is open plan, however the compromise in use in Germany makes some sense - if a bar has two separate rooms then one can be a designated smoking room, the other smoke free.
Why not have 25% of licences issued in a licensing region to be for "smoking pubs" that are regulated for air extraction and general health and safety fro staff.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Each area should be allowed a designated smoking pub.
...........
It's impractical to have a designated smoking area if the pub is open plan, however the compromise in use in Germany makes some sense - if a bar has two separate rooms then one can be a designated smoking room, the other smoke free.
Also in Germany they have the "Club" rule. I have been to The Ivory Club in Frankfurt, it's just a restaurant and bar and you can smoke in there.
Overeating/drinking doesn't kill or affect other people. The rule is - enjoy your pleasures while not inflicting them on others.
Yeah, but if a PUB not area of a pub is designated Smoking, you don't have to go in there do you? It's a matter of choice and that is what is being taken away from us.
Of course drinking too much affects other people. Drink drivers and people being more agressive for starters. Never been worried about cigarette box being thrown at me by someone who has smoked too much, but substitute that for bottle/pint glass and thats a different story.
If smoking is that bad for you then they should ban it completely.
2. No we didn’t take it without a fight, we voted for it! It was Labour policy before the election and still they got a majority – so it can’t be that unpopular can it.
No we did not vote for it. Labour's policy was to allow smoking in bar/restaurants that didn't sreve food. Also private clubs were to be allowed to choose.
They changed to a 100% ban after the General Election.
With all due respect Golfie, thats not the same. Smoking kills not just the smoker but the poor saps who have to breathe in the smoke, that why they have banned it in public. Eating to excess kills nobody other than the person themselves. As regards drinking, the effect is the same whether you drink in private or public, namely it only affects the drinker unless they have an anger management problem or drive whilst under the influence.
Personally I gave up smoking when the company I worked for banned smoking in the workplace some fourteen years ago. There is a case for allowing smoking in designation smoking areas but at the end of the day, you can smoke outside, and in your home and car (provided it's not a place of work) so whats the real problem? If it's too irksome then give up and improve your chances of longevity.
You can probably add any number of things if you add the rider "too much". As a matter of logic if something is "too much" then it is going to have negative consequences. There are crucial differences with smoking though, the main ones being that 1. Smoking kills other people, not just the smoker. 2. Smoking kills more than nything else. The number of people who have been killed in this country as a direct result of smoking since WWII outnumbers the total number of people killed in the holocaust! It is the only product which when used legally in the manner in which it was designed to be used will indiscriminately kill both its users and those about them. If any other thing caused so much death and destruction the people who produced it and sold it would be in jail, at very least on the grounds of corporate manslauter, if not more serious charges. We aren't living in the middle ages any more. It is quite simply unnacceptable for any government not to tackle the biggest killer in its population. The smoking ban had to be introduced; not for political reasons, but quite simply because it was an idea whose time had come.
Wise words Golfie. Drink will be next, they have already started putting warnings on bottles, that's how it started wth fags.
And chirpy is right, I have read the manifesto. We voted for choice, the government changed the bill at the last minute to prevent LVAs and clubs from mounting any kind of opposition.
Whether you approve of the ban or not that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
I have said this before, but many more REGULAR pub goers smoke than the national average, pubs can't survive on the odd visitation from a non-smoker for a port and lemon or a half of foaming ale.
The people who claimed that they didn't go to pubs because of the smoke and were looking forward to being able to go regularly simply didn't turn up, so more and more locals are being forced out of business by the down turn in business.
Here in Portugal smoking is allowed in bars, like ours, where an extraction system is put in place, others are non-smoking. You have a choice.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]And chirpy is right, I have read the manifesto. We voted for choice, the government changed the bill at the last minute to prevent LVAs and clubs from mounting any kind of opposition.
Whether you approve of the ban or not that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
It's galling when Governments change manifesto commitments but there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it. A manifesto is just a wish list which they hope they may be able to carry out. They have to take into account advice given at the time of bring in new laws, etc. They chose a complete ban. If you don't like it, then vote them out. The problem is no mainstream party (as far as I know) is offering to unban it, so ultimately it's tough titty.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]And chirpy is right, I have read the manifesto. We voted for choice, the government changed the bill at the last minute to prevent LVAs and clubs from mounting any kind of opposition.
Whether you approve of the ban or not that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
It's galling when Governments change manifesto commitments but there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it. A manifesto is just a wish list which they hope they may be able to carry out. They have to take into account advice given at the time of bring in new laws, etc. They chose a complete ban. If you don't like it, then vote them out. The problem is no mainstream party (as far as I know) is offering to unban it, so ultimately it's tough titty.
So its rather like the EU referendum we were promised, but that has been swept under the carpet? ;-)
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]And chirpy is right, I have read the manifesto. We voted for choice, the government changed the bill at the last minute to prevent LVAs and clubs from mounting any kind of opposition.
Whether you approve of the ban or not that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
It's galling when Governments change manifesto commitments but there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it. A manifesto is just a wish list which they hope they may be able to carry out. They have to take into account advice given at the time of bring in new laws, etc. They chose a complete ban. If you don't like it, then vote them out. The problem is no mainstream party (as far as I know) is offering to unban it, so ultimately it's tough titty.
So its rather like the EU referendum we were promised, but that has been swept under the carpet? ;-)
Yep. That's politics for you.
Party (a) offered the referendum on the Constituton to get itself out of a hole with the public and the anti EU press.
Party (b) offered it despite never, ever, ever offering a referendum on anything including the Maastrict Treaty and with most if not all their MP's believing that referenda are not neccessary. Many in this party want to leave the EU and this is their hidden agenda.
Party (c), offered it to look "democratic" despite the fact that they were very much in favour of the Consitution and don't want to leave the EU under any circumstances.
After the Election
Party (a) Negotiates a "Treaty" which they say is different to the "Constitution" and say that they only promised one on a "Constitution, despite the fact that they are very similar in reality.
Party (b) Senses blood and embarassment and presses for a referendum, despite the fact that in reality many on their MP's want to leave/roll back the EU to pre-Maatrict and Single European Act days, voted in by their Government on a three line whip and without referenda
Party (c) Has MP's who think that they should honour their commitment but the leadership supports the treaty so they come up with a fudge of asking for a referendum on staying in - which had no chance of being carried.
It has without doubt been an inglorious chapter in the political life of our country.
[cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]And chirpy is right, I have read the manifesto. We voted for choice, the government changed the bill at the last minute to prevent LVAs and clubs from mounting any kind of opposition.
Whether you approve of the ban or not that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
It's galling when Governments change manifesto commitments but there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it. A manifesto is just a wish list which they hope they may be able to carry out. They have to take into account advice given at the time of bring in new laws, etc. They chose a complete ban. If you don't like it, then vote them out. The problem is no mainstream party (as far as I know) is offering to unban it, so ultimately it's tough titty.
So its rather like the EU referendum we were promised, but that has been swept under the carpet? ;-)
Yep. That's politics for you.
Party (a) offered the referendum on the Constituton to get itself out of a hole with the public and the anti EU press.
Party (b) offered it despite never, ever, ever offering a referendum on anything including the Maastrict Treaty and with most if not all their MP's believing that referenda are not neccessary. Many in this party want to leave the EU and this is their hidden agenda.
Party (c), offered it to look "democratic" despite the fact that they were very much in favour of the Consitution and don't want to leave the EU under any circumstances.
After the Election
Party (a) Negotiates a "Treaty" which they say is different to the "Constitution" and say that they only promised one on a "Constitution, despite the fact that they are very similar in reality.
Party (b) Senses blood and embarassment and presses for a referendum, despite the fact that in reality many on their MP's want to leave/roll back the EU to pre-Maatrict and Single European Act days, voted in by their Government on a three line whip and without referenda
Party (c) Has MP's who think that they should honour their commitment but the leadership supports the treaty so they come up with a fudge of asking for a referendum on staying in - which had no chance of being carried.
It has without doubt been an inglorious chapter in the political life of our country.
Careful Bing. You're risking be called a Daily Mail reading Lemming without the ability for independent thought ;-)
Chirpy Red CommentTime2 hours ago permalinkquote
Also in Germany they have the "Club" rule. I have been to The Ivory Club in Frankfurt, it's just a restaurant and bar and you can smoke in there.
Not just the Ivory Club, Chirpy, there's quite a few places in Franbkfurt where they get around the ban ... even in some of the hotels.
Comments
1) A pint & a fag go togetherr like meat & veg. If you can't smoke in a pub, where the bl***y hell are you going to ? If you are out with a group of friends on a saturady night and 2 or 3 of you smoke and the other 2 or 3 don't, what do you do. Keep having to pop out the pub every 20 mins to carry on the craik/banter etc or end up missing parts of it beacuse you do/do not smoke. totally illogical (esp in this country when half the year it is either too cold or too wet to stand outside)
2) if they can ban smoking in pubs, then they can ban drinking in them too. mark my words. We took this one without a fight and in 10/20 years time it will be no different. Reasons then will be...a) health , b) safety (no drinking=no drunks=no fights) etc etc.
3) the smoking breaks smokers get. do non-smokers get the same?? . I really wish I worked in an office block where my colleagues nipped out for a smoking break - just to join them also. I would love to see a WHOLE office standing outside , milling around doing nothing 4 or 5 times a day for 10 mins a-piece. It won't happen beacause most of you are so apathetic its untrue.
All this comes from a non-smoker. Also, 20 years ago I worked in an office with a couple of smokers. we moved premises & the new office came with a total no-smoking zone. No-one told us this before we moved buildings and on the first day in the new place the smokers idn't know what to do. It was agreed that they wopuld be alllowed a ciggy break every so often - I actually said that i would go on strike on their behalf to allow smoking at their desks as I thought it was a freedom of liberty to stop them smoking. That wasn't allowed so about every hour or so 1 or 2 nipped outside (only about 50 yards from their desks) to have a fag. The result - they had a 10 minute break from the pressured environment we were working in and the rest of us had to do their share of the work as well as ours.
Therefore , I urge all you non-smokers to join your colleagues when they nip out for a fag at work, or are 5 mins getting back to their desks after lunch beacuse they had to finish of that ciggy. I would love to see the City of London come to a standstill 5 minutes every hour if all the workers left their buildings for a fag break - night change a few minds to the benefits of a smoking ban !!
1. If it is true that “A pint & a fag go togetherr like meat & veg” –, how would you deal with vegetarians – deliberately put meat on their plate and force them to eat it? What if for some of us a pint and a fag go together like an asthma attack? Does that mean that those people should have to stand outside to “carry on the craik”. Now that you can’t smoke in a pub the answer to your "where" question is, in the privacy of your own home like any other grubby habit.
2. No we didn’t take it without a fight, we voted for it! It was Labour policy before the election and still they got a majority – so it can’t be that unpopular can it.
3. I don’t understand the relevance of this to your argument. Sure smokers got away with extra breaks for years, so what?
You are talking of “a freedom of liberty” for smokers to smoke in public, but I am talking about a habit which kills 114,000 UK citizens every year. Elsewhere on this board are threads which rightfully condemn the recent spate of stabbings and other violent incidents, yet this is nowhere near the level of the 300+ people who are killed every day in this country through smoke; “freedom of liberty”, you’re ‘avin’ a laugh!
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/#source6
No we did not vote for it. Labour's policy was to allow smoking in bar/restaurants that didn't sreve food. Also private clubs were to be allowed to choose.
They changed to a 100% ban after the General Election.
I am a non-somker, have been for 43 years and I think it's wrong. Each area should be allowed a designated smoking pub.
Why should everyone else in the pub / restaurant have to take part in my filthy unhealthy habit?
Which one of your filthy unhealthy habits are you talking about? I certainly don't want to sit next a man in the pub while he wets himself.
...........
It's impractical to have a designated smoking area if the pub is open plan, however the compromise in use in Germany makes some sense - if a bar has two separate rooms then one can be a designated smoking room, the other smoke free.
Why not have 25% of licences issued in a licensing region to be for "smoking pubs" that are regulated for air extraction and general health and safety fro staff.
drinking too much kills
eating too much kills
lets ban the drinking & eating in public.
Also in Germany they have the "Club" rule. I have been to The Ivory Club in Frankfurt, it's just a restaurant and bar and you can smoke in there.
Me eating & drinking too much in public doesnt kill other people........
Overeating/drinking doesn't kill or affect other people. The rule is - enjoy your pleasures while not inflicting them on others.
Yeah, but if a PUB not area of a pub is designated Smoking, you don't have to go in there do you? It's a matter of choice and that is what is being taken away from us.
Drink drivers and people being more agressive for starters.
Never been worried about cigarette box being thrown at me by someone who has smoked too much, but substitute that for bottle/pint glass and thats a different story.
If smoking is that bad for you then they should ban it completely.
Ban Smoking completely
Ban Alcohol completely
Ban eating anything other than a controlled diet of five a day fruit and veg.
Everybody's happy now days
With all due respect Golfie, thats not the same. Smoking kills not just the smoker but the poor saps who have to breathe in the smoke, that why they have banned it in public. Eating to excess kills nobody other than the person themselves. As regards drinking, the effect is the same whether you drink in private or public, namely it only affects the drinker unless they have an anger management problem or drive whilst under the influence.
Personally I gave up smoking when the company I worked for banned smoking in the workplace some fourteen years ago. There is a case for allowing smoking in designation smoking areas but at the end of the day, you can smoke outside, and in your home and car (provided it's not a place of work) so whats the real problem? If it's too irksome then give up and improve your chances of longevity.
Do what you are told and just get on with it you bloody liberal tree hugging human rights yogurt knitters.
You can probably add any number of things if you add the rider "too much". As a matter of logic if something is "too much" then it is going to have negative consequences. There are crucial differences with smoking though, the main ones being that 1. Smoking kills other people, not just the smoker. 2. Smoking kills more than nything else. The number of people who have been killed in this country as a direct result of smoking since WWII outnumbers the total number of people killed in the holocaust! It is the only product which when used legally in the manner in which it was designed to be used will indiscriminately kill both its users and those about them. If any other thing caused so much death and destruction the people who produced it and sold it would be in jail, at very least on the grounds of corporate manslauter, if not more serious charges. We aren't living in the middle ages any more. It is quite simply unnacceptable for any government not to tackle the biggest killer in its population. The smoking ban had to be introduced; not for political reasons, but quite simply because it was an idea whose time had come.
And chirpy is right, I have read the manifesto. We voted for choice, the government changed the bill at the last minute to prevent LVAs and clubs from mounting any kind of opposition.
Whether you approve of the ban or not that is not how democracy is supposed to work.
I have said this before, but many more REGULAR pub goers smoke than the national average, pubs can't survive on the odd visitation from a non-smoker for a port and lemon or a half of foaming ale.
The people who claimed that they didn't go to pubs because of the smoke and were looking forward to being able to go regularly simply didn't turn up, so more and more locals are being forced out of business by the down turn in business.
Here in Portugal smoking is allowed in bars, like ours, where an extraction system is put in place, others are non-smoking. You have a choice.
It's galling when Governments change manifesto commitments but there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it. A manifesto is just a wish list which they hope they may be able to carry out. They have to take into account advice given at the time of bring in new laws, etc. They chose a complete ban. If you don't like it, then vote them out. The problem is no mainstream party (as far as I know) is offering to unban it, so ultimately it's tough titty.
So its rather like the EU referendum we were promised, but that has been swept under the carpet? ;-)
Yep. That's politics for you.
Party (a) offered the referendum on the Constituton to get itself out of a hole with the public and the anti EU press.
Party (b) offered it despite never, ever, ever offering a referendum on anything including the Maastrict Treaty and with most if not all their MP's believing that referenda are not neccessary. Many in this party want to leave the EU and this is their hidden agenda.
Party (c), offered it to look "democratic" despite the fact that they were very much in favour of the Consitution and don't want to leave the EU under any circumstances.
After the Election
Party (a) Negotiates a "Treaty" which they say is different to the "Constitution" and say that they only promised one on a "Constitution, despite the fact that they are very similar in reality.
Party (b) Senses blood and embarassment and presses for a referendum, despite the fact that in reality many on their MP's want to leave/roll back the EU to pre-Maatrict and Single European Act days, voted in by their Government on a three line whip and without referenda
Party (c) Has MP's who think that they should honour their commitment but the leadership supports the treaty so they come up with a fudge of asking for a referendum on staying in - which had no chance of being carried.
It has without doubt been an inglorious chapter in the political life of our country.
Careful Bing. You're risking be called a Daily Mail reading Lemming without the ability for independent thought ;-)
Also in Germany they have the "Club" rule. I have been to The Ivory Club in Frankfurt, it's just a restaurant and bar and you can smoke in there.
Not just the Ivory Club, Chirpy, there's quite a few places in Franbkfurt where they get around the ban ... even in some of the hotels.