I don't follow your logic Sparrows? Why would drinking be next? I've been drinking for 20 years and never effected anybody. I've not poured beer down somebody else's throat for instance (akin to passive smoking), I've not left empty bottles/cans/glasses strewn across every pavement, kerb, park, field, play area and beach in the country (akin to the dog ends the blight every single public space in this country).
So I'm not sure how you can equate drinking with smoking in any way. I'm sure you'll bring up the idiots who like a fight or whatever after a drink, but that is already against the law (more than one law in fact), and has been for a long time.
Put simply, there is no way a smoker can smoke in a public place without effecting people around them, whilst the vast majority of the time people drink alcohol in public without causing a single issue. Therefore the two can not be equated in any way, unless drinkers start pinning people down and forcing alcohol down their throats of course.
I don't follow your logic Sparrows? Why would drinking be next? I've been drinking for 20 years and never effected anybody. I've not poured beer down somebody else's throat for instance (akin to passive smoking), I've not left empty bottles/cans/glasses strewn across every pavement, kerb, park, field, play area and beach in the country (akin to the dog ends the blight every single public space in this country).
So I'm not sure how you can equate drinking with smoking in any way. I'm sure you'll bring up the idiots who like a fight or whatever after a drink, but that is already against the law (more than one law in fact), and has been for a long time.
Put simply, there is no way a smoker can smoke in a public place without effecting people around them, whilst the vast majority of the time people drink alcohol in public without causing a single issue. Therefore the two can not be equated in any way, unless drinkers start pinning people down and forcing alcohol down their throats of course.
The logic is clear. Alcohol results in many deaths, ill health and other related health & crime issues.
The regulation around alcohol doesn't appear to be as strict as smoking, nor is it priced out of reach of impressionable youths or vulnerable people.
Would you not advocate tighter drinking laws such as less drinking hours, restrictions on where you can drink and the pricing structure to help reduce alcohol related issues?
Personally I think the current smoking regulations are about right, I would not want to see them go any further with restricting it. Passive smoking is from frequent presence in a concentrated smoke filled atmosphere. Walking through or past smokers isn't the same as standing in a pub for 5 hours under a fog of smoke.
The biggest thing I'd want to see is something done about people smoking in a house with children living in it.
I'd agree the pricing is all wrong. It should be expensive to purchase non-licensed premises, and there should be far less places to purchase. Pubs and bars should then get tax breaks, but on the proviso that the actual law is enforced, i.e. not serving those who are already drunk, not serving under age, etc.
The laws already exists, they just aren't enforced adequately, and the way the pricing is structured ensure landlords aren't going to turn any of their dwindling customer base away.
As for pricing out of the reach of youths or the vulnerable, that isn't happening with cigarettes as far as I can see. Studies show the smoking rates are higher in lower income households and also higher in those with mental diseases (for instance those suffering depression are far far more likely to smoke than the general population averages). So the vulnerable definitely aren't being protected, and the number of kids you see smoking on the street means they clearly aren't being prices out either.
There are already laws in place around every single possible anti-social thing a drinker could possibly do (drunk and disorderly, assault, underage drinking, various antisocial laws, etc.) they just need to be enforced more intelligently.
With the way pricing has gone, young people in particular just get loaded up before they go out. I'm sure some civil servant thought allowing prices to drop so low in supermarkets would encourage more people to stay at home and therefore save on policing costs. What it's actually done is make some people stay home (the regulars who actually keep pubs running), but made no difference to the fri/sat night binge drinkers who are the cause of the problems. If anything it's just made those problems worse.
The solution is simple, and one the industry has been asking for for a while, tax supermarket sales at a far higher rate whilst lower tax rates for pubs and bars. You wouldn't have to swing it crazily in the opposite direction, just enough to make the two approximately equal, or even still slightly in the supermarkets favour.
At the moment it's £1-£2 for a pint from the supermarket and £2.50-£4.50 at pubs, so approx 2.5x the price. If the taxes were adjusted so it's was £1.75-£3 in the supermarket and £2-£4 at the pubs then you'd see less people getting tanked up, an uptick in regulars at pubs and at least a slowing of the pub closure rates.
Less drinking hours wouldn't make a difference. After the extension of drinking hours crime rates actually fell slightly. You reintroduce shorter hours then you just have people drinking faster and all leaving pubs at the same time, the very things the extension on hours were at least partially designed to overcome.
At the end of the day it's an education thing. Smoking rates have halved in the last 40 years. Problem drinking rates will fall (that is the key difference between smoking and drinking, all smoking is problematic). Restricting access and knowledge only makes things worse. The lad at university who got wasted the most was the one who had never touched a drop until he arrived at uni. Knowledge and experience are power, depriving people of both is dangerous. That's why smoking numbers have fallen and continue to fall, not because we disavow all knowledge of it, but because our children are educated at a young age.
The other key difference is one of media. We are often shown the downsides of alcohol on tv and in film, the depression, the anger, the lose of control and the consequences. It's only very very recently that the media has shown smoking as anything other than the cool thing the action hero does, or the sexy leading lady does.
The other key difference is one of media. We are often shown the downsides of alcohol on tv and in film, the depression, the anger, the lose of control and the consequences. It's only very very recently that the media has shown smoking as anything other than the cool thing the action hero does, or the sexy leading lady does.
That's a good point. Smoking is used far too readily in films, but particularly in TV productions. Sometimes I feel it is used excessively, beyond real life usage, almost as subliminal advertising by smoking directors/producers. If it were banned would it detract from the production? With very few exceptions I don't think so.
It has largely disappeared from American TV and much british TV, soaps being a notable exception. The cynic in me thinks the recent fashion for basing TV shows in the recentish past (The Hour, Mad Men, etc.) is just an easy way to take money of tobacco firms and show everybody smoking under the pretence of historical accuracy. I guess one of the appeals of sci-fi as a kid was it was largely (Starbuck's cigar not withstanding) a smoke free zone
Can't believe how much debate this topic has generated.
The smoking definitely bothers me, as it reminds me of Millwall and I think it brings down the image of our fans and the general match-day experience for everyone else.
But I really don't believe it's that difficult to solve. I think the club is likely to respond if enough people raise the issue - and there are clearly plenty of people on here who have an issue with it.
If only a couple of people have mentioned it, of course nothing will be done about it.
Was at Gloucester vs Japan game last night. I'm guessing a 10,000 crowd. One corner of the ground, between 2 stands, is a designated smoking area. In view of the pitch. (Next to the bars which serve 3 draught bitters, draught cider, Guiness, red and white wine etc. all pre poured and instantly available) How is this possible at one sporting arena, but not at others such as Charlton?
If The Valley had a similar set up, the toilets would be smoke free and wouldnt everyone be happy?
No electronic ciggies allowed outside the smoking corner.
Also, because there is an international match on Saturday, they are opening early with all beer at 2.50 a pint (£1 off usual prices) and the match shown on their two excellent screens. Kick off has been delayed until the England NZ match has finished. Smart.
It has largely disappeared from American TV and much british TV, soaps being a notable exception. The cynic in me thinks the recent fashion for basing TV shows in the recentish past (The Hour, Mad Men, etc.) is just an easy way to take money of tobacco firms and show everybody smoking under the pretence of historical accuracy. I guess one of the appeals of sci-fi as a kid was it was largely (Starbuck's cigar not withstanding) a smoke free zone
I think it has been banned from US TV and I wish that would happen here. I must admit I haven't noticed any reduction here.
yup. Perhaps we can focus on the 'sports ground' aspect of my post. how can one sporting arena allow it, but another cant, with similar crowds, stands etc.
Unfortunately you cannot divorce the sports ground aspect from the sport. The sport - and therefore the fans - are treated differently regardless of whether the venue is the same.
If for some reason a football league game was played at the same Gloucester ground, those arrangements would likely not apply.....definitely the drinking in sight of the pitch one!
yup. Perhaps we can focus on the 'sports ground' aspect of my post. how can one sporting arena allow it, but another cant, with similar crowds, stands etc.
I think it was a decision driven by the FA/premier league/football league about smoking in the stands, (as they aren't enclosed spaces as such) rather than the law - meaning other sports grounds can have smoking areas?
yup. Perhaps we can focus on the 'sports ground' aspect of my post. how can one sporting arena allow it, but another cant, with similar crowds, stands etc.
I think it was a decision driven by the FA/premier league/football league about smoking in the stands, (as they aren't enclosed spaces as such) rather than the law - meaning other sports grounds can have smoking areas?
Thanks for this insight. I wonder why they made this decision? I would have thought safety is the same whichever allegiance the fans show. If smokers are outside, I dont see if it matters if they are seen to be ''football scum'' as the recipients of our football cash, the FA/PL/FL see us, or jolly good rugger types? Smoking is smoking, isnt it? What gives those tossers at FL/PL/FA level the right to impose rules that clearly arent based on safety?
As a smoker I understand you have to be considerate of non smokers. That means not smoking in the toilets at the football and generally showing a bit of consideration when and where you spark up.
Having said that, those people who think that smokers are the devil incarnate and no provision should be made for them might want to consider that the ground is half empty on a good day.
Perhaps asking the club to arrange an area where the significant proportion of fans who do smoke can enjoy a fag and a beer at half time without inconveniencing non smokers might be of more benefit rather than this puritanical crusade. Who are you to dictate how others live their lives?
As for the dangers of passive smoking, As others have pointed out, you need to be in an enclosed space consistently over a long period of time to remotely increase your risk. Roy Castle contracted lung cancer after a lifetime of playing the trumpet in smoky clubs. Unless your planning on taking your trumpet and spending hours in smoky bogs every day this argument doesn't really stack up.
It's a question of manners not health, the comment about a non smoker consuming 12 fags a day on the walk to and from work is pure comedy, seriously get a grip.
Why should any club make provisions for smokers, drinkers and in one instance wankers. It's an hour and a half of sporting entertainment (well ok, not always) As most of us drink and smoke before and after the game it seems a nonsense argument. If your'e that much in love with your drug, then don't go to a football match.
It's a workplace, smoking isn't allowed in workplaces, so smoking isn't6 allowed in the Valley.
This simply doesnt make sense or follow logic. Kingsholm is a workplace for the bar security playing coaching staff etc, just as The Valley is.
So, why smoking permitted at Kingsholm, to the benefit of all, but not at The Valley?
Probably because they liaised with the local Environmental Health people and came up with something that satisfied the criteria of the Act. And smoking is to no one's benefit, apart from the tobacco companies.
Comments
So I'm not sure how you can equate drinking with smoking in any way. I'm sure you'll bring up the idiots who like a fight or whatever after a drink, but that is already against the law (more than one law in fact), and has been for a long time.
Put simply, there is no way a smoker can smoke in a public place without effecting people around them, whilst the vast majority of the time people drink alcohol in public without causing a single issue. Therefore the two can not be equated in any way, unless drinkers start pinning people down and forcing alcohol down their throats of course.
The regulation around alcohol doesn't appear to be as strict as smoking, nor is it priced out of reach of impressionable youths or vulnerable people.
Would you not advocate tighter drinking laws such as less drinking hours, restrictions on where you can drink and the pricing structure to help reduce alcohol related issues?
Personally I think the current smoking regulations are about right, I would not want to see them go any further with restricting it. Passive smoking is from frequent presence in a concentrated smoke filled atmosphere. Walking through or past smokers isn't the same as standing in a pub for 5 hours under a fog of smoke.
The biggest thing I'd want to see is something done about people smoking in a house with children living in it.
The laws already exists, they just aren't enforced adequately, and the way the pricing is structured ensure landlords aren't going to turn any of their dwindling customer base away.
As for pricing out of the reach of youths or the vulnerable, that isn't happening with cigarettes as far as I can see. Studies show the smoking rates are higher in lower income households and also higher in those with mental diseases (for instance those suffering depression are far far more likely to smoke than the general population averages). So the vulnerable definitely aren't being protected, and the number of kids you see smoking on the street means they clearly aren't being prices out either.
There are already laws in place around every single possible anti-social thing a drinker could possibly do (drunk and disorderly, assault, underage drinking, various antisocial laws, etc.) they just need to be enforced more intelligently.
With the way pricing has gone, young people in particular just get loaded up before they go out. I'm sure some civil servant thought allowing prices to drop so low in supermarkets would encourage more people to stay at home and therefore save on policing costs. What it's actually done is make some people stay home (the regulars who actually keep pubs running), but made no difference to the fri/sat night binge drinkers who are the cause of the problems. If anything it's just made those problems worse.
The solution is simple, and one the industry has been asking for for a while, tax supermarket sales at a far higher rate whilst lower tax rates for pubs and bars. You wouldn't have to swing it crazily in the opposite direction, just enough to make the two approximately equal, or even still slightly in the supermarkets favour.
At the moment it's £1-£2 for a pint from the supermarket and £2.50-£4.50 at pubs, so approx 2.5x the price. If the taxes were adjusted so it's was £1.75-£3 in the supermarket and £2-£4 at the pubs then you'd see less people getting tanked up, an uptick in regulars at pubs and at least a slowing of the pub closure rates.
Less drinking hours wouldn't make a difference. After the extension of drinking hours crime rates actually fell slightly. You reintroduce shorter hours then you just have people drinking faster and all leaving pubs at the same time, the very things the extension on hours were at least partially designed to overcome.
At the end of the day it's an education thing. Smoking rates have halved in the last 40 years. Problem drinking rates will fall (that is the key difference between smoking and drinking, all smoking is problematic). Restricting access and knowledge only makes things worse. The lad at university who got wasted the most was the one who had never touched a drop until he arrived at uni. Knowledge and experience are power, depriving people of both is dangerous. That's why smoking numbers have fallen and continue to fall, not because we disavow all knowledge of it, but because our children are educated at a young age.
The other key difference is one of media. We are often shown the downsides of alcohol on tv and in film, the depression, the anger, the lose of control and the consequences. It's only very very recently that the media has shown smoking as anything other than the cool thing the action hero does, or the sexy leading lady does.
Can't believe how much debate this topic has generated.
The smoking definitely bothers me, as it reminds me of Millwall and I think it brings down the image of our fans and the general match-day experience for everyone else.
But I really don't believe it's that difficult to solve. I think the club is likely to respond if enough people raise the issue - and there are clearly plenty of people on here who have an issue with it.
If only a couple of people have mentioned it, of course nothing will be done about it.
I'm guessing a 10,000 crowd.
One corner of the ground, between 2 stands, is a designated smoking area.
In view of the pitch.
(Next to the bars which serve 3 draught bitters, draught cider, Guiness, red and white wine etc. all pre poured and instantly available)
How is this possible at one sporting arena, but not at others such as Charlton?
If The Valley had a similar set up, the toilets would be smoke free and wouldnt everyone be happy?
No electronic ciggies allowed outside the smoking corner.
Also, because there is an international match on Saturday, they are opening early with all beer at 2.50 a pint (£1 off usual prices) and the match shown on their two excellent screens. Kick off has been delayed until the England NZ match has finished.
Smart.
Football rules and regulations are a long way behind rugby in terms of common sense.
But that is largely because football fans are a long way behind rugby fans in terms of evolution.
Perhaps we can focus on the 'sports ground' aspect of my post.
how can one sporting arena allow it, but another cant, with similar crowds, stands etc.
If for some reason a football league game was played at the same Gloucester ground, those arrangements would likely not apply.....definitely the drinking in sight of the pitch one!
As others have said we owe a lot to the morons who used football as an excuse for fighting.
I wonder why they made this decision?
I would have thought safety is the same whichever allegiance the fans show.
If smokers are outside, I dont see if it matters if they are seen to be ''football scum'' as the recipients of our football cash, the FA/PL/FL see us, or jolly good rugger types?
Smoking is smoking, isnt it?
What gives those tossers at FL/PL/FA level the right to impose rules that clearly arent based on safety?
I blame Hamer for all this injustice (if that helps?)
So the ground used for rugby is too
Kingsholm is a workplace for the bar security playing coaching staff etc, just as The Valley is.
So, why smoking permitted at Kingsholm, to the benefit of all, but not at The Valley?
And what was their response ?
As a smoker I understand you have to be considerate of non smokers. That means not smoking in the toilets at the football and generally showing a bit of consideration when and where you spark up.
Having said that, those people who think that smokers are the devil incarnate and no provision should be made for them might want to consider that the ground is half empty on a good day.
Perhaps asking the club to arrange an area where the significant proportion of fans who do smoke can enjoy a fag and a beer at half time without inconveniencing non smokers might be of more benefit rather than this puritanical crusade.
Who are you to dictate how others live their lives?
As for the dangers of passive smoking, As others have pointed out, you need to be in an enclosed space consistently over a long period of time to remotely increase your risk. Roy Castle contracted lung cancer after a lifetime of playing the trumpet in smoky clubs. Unless your planning on taking your trumpet and spending hours in smoky bogs every day this argument doesn't really stack up.
It's a question of manners not health, the comment about a non smoker consuming 12 fags a day on the walk to and from work is pure comedy, seriously get a grip.
And smoking is to no one's benefit, apart from the tobacco companies.