Smoking ban

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:57 pm

in scotland IIRC the pubs are obliged to supply butt-bins outside their premises if they designate it a smoking area

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:02 pm

Went to work this morn at the hospital, and my smoking colleague told me they'd knocked out the glass in the smoking shelter. The reason? It's an enclosed space. Got to think of them non smokers going in the smoking area you know...

Personally I'm against this ban. The whole idea that a drug can be illegal in public but not in private is ridiculous. either ban it completely or not at all.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:03 pm

Same at our place Verbal, they've knocked out the windows in the shelter.

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:14 pm

Tsk, it's getting ridiculous to the point of demonising smokers - now you can smoke in a 'shelter' and still get wet through and freeze your t*ts off!

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:18 pm

I now have to have, by law, a no smoking sticker displayed in my car (it being a company vehicle) despite the fact that it's only ever driven by me. A colleague of mine went to a Christening yesterday and the church had had stick a no smoking sign up on the door, on the grounds of it being a public place. Now I'm no church go-er, but I'm fairly certain that sparking up in church is one of THE great taboos of life.

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:18 pm

communistworkethic wrote:in scotland IIRC the pubs are obliged to supply butt-bins outside their premises if they designate it a smoking area

A bit of clarification required for our North American members at this point I think, Commie!

walkingdownthemannyroad · Post by **walkingdownthemannyroad** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:28 pm

Six years ago I read a great book by Alan Carr, and have not smoked a fag since,best thing I have ever done.

I feel a million times better, I have saved a fortune,I now go running and play squash, I don't stink, I can taste my food and I don't spend ten minutes every morning coughing up dark brown goo into my toilet bowl.

I do not see why I should be forced to breathe in other people toxic fumes every time I fancy a pint, also why should people who work in pubs have to suffer from this disgusting habit.

Having said all that, if a landlord wants to run a smoking pub, he should be allowed to do so,as long as there are large signs outside warning people. Then you takes your choice..

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:37 pm

walkingdownthemannyroad wrote:Having said all that, if a landlord wants to run a smoking pub, he should be allowed to do so,as long as there are large signs outside warning people. Then you takes your choice..

Absolutely. What's happened to individual choice here? I too am an ex-smoker, but more than that I'm a fully grown adult. I'm quite capable of deciding for myself whether I want to go into a pub (or other public place) that allows smoking over one that doesn't. Surely, had the government applied any modicum of intellect to this issue, then this whole 'we're right, our rights are stronger than their rights' debate would be completely moot on the grounds that the choice remains with the individual.

walkingdownthemannyroad · Post by **walkingdownthemannyroad** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:03 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
walkingdownthemannyroad wrote:Having said all that, if a landlord wants to run a smoking pub, he should be allowed to do so,as long as there are large signs outside warning people. Then you takes your choice..
Absolutely. What's happened to individual choice here? I too am an ex-smoker, but more than that I'm a fully grown adult. I'm quite capable of deciding for myself whether I want to go into a pub (or other public place) that allows smoking over one that doesn't. Surely, had the government applied any modicum of intellect to this issue, then this whole 'we're right, our rights are stronger than their rights' debate would be completely moot on the grounds that the choice remains with the individual.

I agree with you Bruce, but the govenment only acted after taking advice from their top medical men, the dangers from breathing in second hand smoke have been known for years.

You must admit,being in a smoke free enviroment is much more pleasant.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:08 pm

I think you're missing the point, it's all down to HSE. It's the employees not the customers they are concerned about.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:15 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
walkingdownthemannyroad wrote:Having said all that, if a landlord wants to run a smoking pub, he should be allowed to do so,as long as there are large signs outside warning people. Then you takes your choice..
Absolutely. What's happened to individual choice here? I too am an ex-smoker, but more than that I'm a fully grown adult. I'm quite capable of deciding for myself whether I want to go into a pub (or other public place) that allows smoking over one that doesn't. Surely, had the government applied any modicum of intellect to this issue, then this whole 'we're right, our rights are stronger than their rights' debate would be completely moot on the grounds that the choice remains with the individual.

Most sense yet on a no-win topic. As for employees, do people with hayfever apply for jobs in stables?

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:22 pm

hayfever doesn't kill you usually and it can be managed with a couple of piriton.

To take your example TD, do miners not deserve compensation for vibration white finger or contracting pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis? Or now that the dangers are known, protection from them by being provided with suitable equipment such a breathing apparatus? Perhaps the police not provided with stabproof vests, or firemen with fireproof jackets- afterall they know the risks but choose to take the job anyway.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:27 pm

communistworkethic wrote:hayfever doesn't kill you usually and it can be managed with a couple of piriton.

To take your example TD, do miners not deserve compensation for vibration white finger or contracting pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis? Or now that the dangers are known, protection from them by being provided with suitable equipment such a breathing apparatus? Perhaps the police not provided with stabproof vests, or firemen with fireproof jackets- afterall they know the risks but choose to take the job anyway.

Ah, I see, aqualungs for barmaids.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:27 pm

walkingdownthemannyroad wrote:I agree with you Bruce, but the govenment only acted after taking advice from their top medical men, the dangers from breathing in second hand smoke have been known for years.

You must admit,being in a smoke free enviroment is much more pleasant.

Yeah, but I chose to smoke, now I choose not to. That's my choice. If one place allows smoking and another place doesn't, it should still be my choice as to which one, if not both, that I choose to enter. I'm a big boy. I can make these decisions for myself. I can stay in no-smoking establishments and marvel at how I can wear the same pair of jeans for a day or two longer. Or, I could take up the option of 'I couldn't give a shiny shite how my clothes smell the day after as the washer/dryer can have them like brand new within 90 minutes anyway". My gripe is that this choice has been taken away from me.

walkingdownthemannyroad · Post by **walkingdownthemannyroad** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:34 pm

Not much of a choice is it really Bruce?

To risk cancer or not? Hummm, toughie that.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:41 pm

walkingdownthemannyroad wrote:Not much of a choice is it really Bruce?

To risk cancer or not? Hummm, toughie that.

Err, yeah. That's why I chose to stop smoking

. Wasn't your point about going into places that'd make your clothes smell? And mine about that choice being up to the individual?

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:46 pm

So ask the landlords to pay a higher tax and regulate air quality. More tax money, and have the employees sign a consent form indicating they understand the risks. Maybe these pubs could switch to American style tipping or pay a little more.

TANGODANCER · Post by **TANGODANCER** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:49 pm

walkingdownthemannyroad wrote:Not much of a choice is it really Bruce?

To risk cancer or not? Hummm, toughie that.

Yeah, well now we have an additional choice: Dying from Pnuemonia in a freezing shelter or huddled under an umbrella, all so that one section of society can prove a point over another. In fifty years of smoking I never did encourage anyone to join me or begrudge them from not doing. Never did disrespect their wishes or choices either. Never smoked in a non-smokers home or attempted to light up in a no-smoking food area. That's the main difference Manny.

communistworkethic · Post by **communistworkethic** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:53 pm

americantrotter wrote:So ask the landlords to pay a higher tax and regulate air quality. More tax money, and have the employees sign a consent form indicating they understand the risks. Maybe these pubs could switch to American style tipping or pay a little more.

and those that don't accept lose their jobs?

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:53 pm

americantrotter wrote:So ask the landlords to pay a higher tax and regulate air quality. More tax money, and have the employees sign a consent form indicating they understand the risks. Maybe these pubs could switch to American style tipping or pay a little more.

Not an option under British law

Connect with your social network account

Smoking ban

Who is online