Rob..the publicans I know, all of them bar one is a non-smoker.... and yes, the licensing trade was in trouble before the ban - but to say the smoking ban has had zero effect on punter numbers in these establishments.... well, the colosal rise in the places going under these past few years is surely some indication....

 

And Suedehead - so when you first ever went to a pub, it would obviously have been 'full of smoke'.... you continued to goregardless.... so what made you suddenly 'get out of the habit' of going - was there a rapid rise in the number of smokers in these establishments?

No there wasn't a rapid rise in the number of smokers. But I just got fed up with the fact that I'd get home from the pub reeking of smoke. I hated the fact that all the clothes I wore - which might include a pair of jeans fresh out of the wash - couldn't be worn again until they had been washed because of the smell.

The Tories promised before the election they'd repeal the ban - and do what Labour should have done - the sensible option - given the landlords the choice of whether they ran a smoking or non-smoking venue. Any news on this or have they conveniently forgotten about it?

 

Does this mean you will be pro-tory then? :lol:

 

Joking of course. I think this is a black and white situation. Pubs and bars are public places so smoking should be banned. Your car and home is, however, not a public space so the owner of the car and home should be given the option to smoke in their car. If the parent wishes to smoke infront of their child, then it's up to them to set a bad example and tarnish their health.

No there wasn't a rapid rise in the number of smokers. But I just got fed up with the fact that I'd get home from the pub reeking of smoke. I hated the fact that all the clothes I wore - which might include a pair of jeans fresh out of the wash - couldn't be worn again until they had been washed because of the smell.

 

Yes agreed. Even being outside with a smoker is enough for the stench to linger on your clothes. My only beef with the smoking ban is that it didn't come in sooner, I wish it came before I started uni; I might aswell smoked the amount of passive smoking I inhaled in those 3 years!

So, Scotty and Suedehead - are you really both anti-choice, then? Of the opiniion that publicans should be told what to allow in their venues? And, correct me if I'm wrong, you're completely against giving punters the choice - either frequent a smoking or a non-smoking venue?

So, Scotty and Suedehead - are you really both anti-choice, then? Of the opiniion that publicans should be told what to allow in their venues? And, correct me if I'm wrong, you're completely against giving punters the choice - either frequent a smoking or a non-smoking venue?

My preference would have been for places like pubs to have the option of having a completely separate enclosed area for smokers. If they couldn't accommodate that, they would have to be completely non-smoking. My philosophy can be summed up in the phrase "my freedom ends where your nose begins". That works both ways and my nose doesn't like smoke.

So, Scotty and Suedehead - are you really both anti-choice, then?

 

Well, no, that's clearly a twist on an isolated opnion. And where was my choice of wheather or not to breathe in the smoke of other peoples fags in the club/pub?? Exactly...

Well, no, that's clearly a twist on an isolated opnion. And where was my choice of wheather or not to breathe in the smoke of other peoples fags in the club/pub?? Exactly...

 

agreed!

It's widely thought that the money lost from revenue if it was banned would eventually be outweighed by the money saved on the NHS from treating people, so how about this - don't ban it, but instead make regular smokers pay for their treatment on the NHS instead of giving them it for free. Taxpayers money saved and still getting the revenue because it's still legal.

 

Yes ... and while we're at it ... we can charge fat people for their hospital treatment for eating too much ... greedy bast*rds. Also .... regular drinkers can pay for their treatment, the list could go on. Oh but wait ... I'm sure our BOGOF Government have got this in hand already.

 

I'm an ex-smoker and was glad for the smoking ban in public places (even before I gave up). I also think that the ban has actually had an effect as it has made people give up totally or at least drastically cut down.

 

Norma

I'm no expert but I have been known to socialise and I do work in a pub and I can't say I ever hear people moaning that they can't smoke. The majority of people seem happy to go outside however regularly they need a cigarette and as a social smoker myself I'm always happy to do that, in fact I consider it a good way to meet people when you're forced to go outside and mingle amongst other smokers rather than sitting at your table with your group of friends. Being the age I am I don't really recall how things were prior to the smoking ban but I certainly don't take issue with it.

 

As for smoking in cars I can't say I have an opinion. It's not the sort of thing I'd usually do. Do people have the right to? Probably, but I think there are so many bigger issues more worthy of debate and I don't think anybody is really going to suffer if they have to wait until the end of their car journey, or pull over somewhere, to have a fag.

 

There's a principle involved Jark, but you're just echoing the general apathy of the general public to our ever-eroding civil liberties and freedoms and the ever-increasing amounts of State control... It's not something that happens suddenly, it's a constant drip effect, but one day you WILL realise that you as an ordinary citizen have very few rights.... I honestly dunno why we tolerate this sh!t, in France they take to the streets if something p!sses them off, I say we should be more like the French in that respect.... Or, indeed, the Greeks....

 

There may be the "nicey" aspects of smoking outside the pub and mingling with others, but it doesn't alter the fact that it's symptomatic of adults being treated like children by a nanny state which seems obsessed with eroding our rights as citizens.... Pub Landlords should've been able to decide for THEMSELVES if they wished their OWN establishments to be non-smoking or smoking.... That's called "democracy" funnily enough..... And, also funnily enough, it seems as though Pub/Club Landlords in Germany and France are pretty much doing exactly this, despite the EU legislation....

 

Yes ... and while we're at it ... we can charge fat people for their hospital treatment for eating too much ... greedy bast*rds. Also .... regular drinkers can pay for their treatment, the list could go on. Oh but wait ... I'm sure our BOGOF Government have got this in hand already.

 

quite...also.... while we're on the subject.... why am I subsidising people to breed? My taxes pay for other people's kids... why????? Why am I paying for someone's kids' school uniforms? For their hospital treatment? I don't have kids.... or ever ever want them.... so why should I pay for other peoples'?

 

Perhaps if we were all responsible for our own welfare and treatment..... that'll mean zero healthcare from the NHS for people doing any kind of sport...... it'll exclude every single person not earning from any type of healthcare..... as Norma says, every single person hospitalised for drink, drug or eating-related illnesses - you pay for it yourself or you're off out onto the street.... the list could go on.

 

The harsh and painful truth for non-smokers is, for many years, smokers have subsidised YOU. The amount taken from the NHS for healthcare for smoking related diseases is a drop in the ocean compared to the tax every single smoker pays each year on their fags. That's a simple fact, like it or not.

 

So the simple question that everyone seems to ask is.... if smoking's so horrendous.... surely the Government should ban it outright, like they do other supposedly dangerous drugs. The answer as to why they don't? Smokers prop up the economy, that's why, and zero smokers would mean all you smug 'anti' brigade would pay a heluuva lot more taxes on EVERYTHING.

quite...also.... while we're on the subject.... why am I subsidising people to breed? My taxes pay for other people's kids... why????? Why am I paying for someone's kids' school uniforms? For their hospital treatment? I don't have kids.... or ever ever want them.... so why should I pay for other peoples'?

 

Perhaps if we were all responsible for our own welfare and treatment..... that'll mean zero healthcare from the NHS for people doing any kind of sport...... it'll exclude every single person not earning from any type of healthcare..... as Norma says, every single person hospitalised for drink, drug or eating-related illnesses - you pay for it yourself or you're off out onto the street.... the list could go on.

 

The harsh and painful truth for non-smokers is, for many years, smokers have subsidised YOU. The amount taken from the NHS for healthcare for smoking related diseases is a drop in the ocean compared to the tax every single smoker pays each year on their fags. That's a simple fact, like it or not.

 

So the simple question that everyone seems to ask is.... if smoking's so horrendous.... surely the Government should ban it outright, like they do other supposedly dangerous drugs. The answer as to why they don't? Smokers prop up the economy, that's why, and zero smokers would mean all you smug 'anti' brigade would pay a heluuva lot more taxes on EVERYTHING.

 

assuming your statistics are correct, so what?... whats that got to do with it?... your inferance that "us smokers subsidise your tax burden so in return you can put up with our smoke" is ridiculous. tobacco IS a dangerous drug (no not the only one in everyday use...but thats a different subject), tobacco DOES cause damage to your/our health, FACT.

 

there are plenty of things the government wastes our taxes on , maybe a total ban on cigarettes and a re adjustment of where they are spent would solve the health care funding shortfall. personally id like to see a huge increase in drug rehabs for prostitues to get them off the streets and with help back into society. (hang pimps too... evil bast*rds).

 

there are plenty of things the government wastes our taxes on , maybe a total ban on cigarettes and a re adjustment of where they are spent would solve the health care funding shortfall. personally id like to see a huge increase in drug rehabs for prostitues to get them off the streets and with help back into society. (hang pimps too... evil bast*rds).

 

Simple method to get rid of pimps and the exploitation of prostitutes - legalise brothels and allow Prostitutes themselves to set up legally and bring them into the taxation and regulatory systems, book-keeping, VAT, etc... Organised criminals would run a mile from that one... The tax revenues brought in from legalised prostitution would probably pay back our debt within five years..... :rolleyes:

 

Like it or not Rob, Russ has a point about the revenue from tobacco and alcohol (and let's make no mistake here, once this Nanny State is done with the smokers they'll set their sights on the drinkers and use similar emotive, guilt-inducing arguments...). I'm NOT a smoker, but I will absolutely defend their rights to smoke in environments which are adult such as the traditional pub (ie, non-gastro) and clubs, or in their OWN CARS...

Simple method to get rid of pimps and the exploitation of prostitutes - legalise brothels and allow Prostitutes themselves to set up legally and bring them into the taxation and regulatory systems, book-keeping, VAT, etc... Organised criminals would run a mile from that one... The tax revenues brought in from legalised prostitution would probably pay back our debt within five years..... :rolleyes:

 

Like it or not Rob, Russ has a point about the revenue from tobacco and alcohol (and let's make no mistake here, once this Nanny State is done with the smokers they'll set their sights on the drinkers and use similar emotive, guilt-inducing arguments...). I'm NOT a smoker, but I will absolutely defend their rights to smoke in environments which are adult such as the traditional pub (ie, non-gastro) and clubs, or in their OWN CARS...

 

... if you removed drugs from the equasion, thered be very little prostitution... time after time again on telly theres testimonies from girls who are forced one way or another into prostitution because of drugs. often they are deliberately hooked by bast*rd pimps. they are responsible for the abuse which is prostitution.

 

i know he does.

 

you know the old pagan motto.... you can do whatever you want to do as long as it doesnt adversely effect others. THATS why im for the smoking ban in public places.... as for in your own car...only an idiot would do it in there IF he had hids in. as for 'tradition'.... just how far back do pubs go? that one in nottingham dates to the 12th centuary...thats 400 years BEFORE tobacco was introduced! :P.

 

besides, im not so sure that growing cash crops like tobacco in poor countries is helping the general population of that country, as all profits go to the few top cats. id suggest theyd be better growing FOOD for their indiginous population.

... if you removed drugs from the equasion, thered be very little prostitution... time after time again on telly theres testimonies from girls who are forced one way or another into prostitution because of drugs. often they are deliberately hooked by bast*rd pimps. they are responsible for the abuse which is prostitution.

 

i know he does.

 

you know the old pagan motto.... you can do whatever you want to do as long as it doesnt adversely effect others. THATS why im for the smoking ban in public places.... as for in your own car...only an idiot would do it in there IF he had hids in. as for 'tradition'.... just how far back do pubs go? that one in nottingham dates to the 12th centuary...thats 400 years BEFORE tobacco was introduced! :P.

 

besides, im not so sure that growing cash crops like tobacco in poor countries is helping the general population of that country, as all profits go to the few top cats. id suggest theyd be better growing FOOD for their indiginous population.

 

You could say exactly the same thing about sugar, tea, coffee though Rob.... I somehow doubt you're gonna give up your cuppa though are you..... :rolleyes:

 

Prostitution has existed since the dawn of time mate, it IS the "world's oldest profession" after all, let's get real.... There was prostitution long before heroin or crack addiction if you wanna get technical.... I dont buy your argument at all, without drugs, prostitution would still exist, simple as, take a look at the legal Red Light districts in Amsterdam, Germany, etc, the legal brothels in US states such as Nevada, Escort Agencies, etc, absolutely NOBODY who runs a legit Prostitution operation is gonna hire a smackhead or a crack whore, and these more legit operations do a roaring trade....

 

You know exactly what I meant by "traditional" pub mate, dont be so facetious, I actually defined it as the non-gastro ones..... The point is, punters and publicans should have the CHOICE of whether they want to run or go to a smoking or non-smoking pub... That CHOICE (which is what a "democracy" is surely all about) was taken away from them by the draconian nanny state Nu Labor government... And you still fail to address my point about the low-enforcement in France and Germany...

The point is, punters and publicans should have the CHOICE of whether they want to run or go to a smoking or non-smoking pub... That CHOICE (which is what a "democracy" is surely all about) was taken away from them by the draconian nanny state Nu Labor government... And you still fail to address my point about the low-enforcement in France and Germany...

 

In a nutshell....

 

Isn't it odd that people would really rather see the licensing trade disappear than to give publicans the choice over what to do with their establishmemts? It kind of enforces the bullish, belligerent attitude the anti-brigade have had all along, it seems.

 

Another 2 pubs in my area went under last week.... friend of mine was chating to the landlord of one of them... and yes, he puts the blame for the closure firmly at the door of the anti-smoking brigade.

 

Personally, I'd rather take the word of the people directly involved than the pompous, pious mumblings of the anti-brigade who seem to pontificate about the awfulness of smoke in pubs they very very rarely ever venture into. -_-

erm.. tbh theres a difference between a foodstuf and a toxin! but hey, i could live without tea, or pay the going rate...i find it odd that many here go on about our minimum wage but ignore it when it comes to johnny foreigners and their livelyhood. we produce our own sugar btw.

 

 

oh well thats ok then, lets leave these girls to be abused. dont you ever take any NOTICE of the testimonies of street girls? after the latest event in bradford, following on from ipswich.. they ALL said they do it to feed a drug habit. i cant argue against the minority who do it as a clear, concious informed decision...but street girls arnt like that.

 

 

that is not CHOICE... the only choice there is whether or not the majority of non smoking people are willing to put up with the vile, obnoxious stench that is cigarette smoke. you talk of democracy... well if there was a referendum on this, smoking yay or nay in public places...the non smokers would still win hands down! :lol:

 

no point to address, i live i the uk. whats the point of a ban if its not enforced?

erm.. tbh theres a difference between a foodstuf and a toxin! but hey, i could live without tea, or pay the going rate...i find it odd that many here go on about our minimum wage but ignore it when it comes to johnny foreigners and their livelyhood. we produce our own sugar btw.

oh well thats ok then, lets leave these girls to be abused. dont you ever take any NOTICE of the testimonies of street girls? after the latest event in bradford, following on from ipswich.. they ALL said they do it to feed a drug habit. i cant argue against the minority who do it as a clear, concious informed decision...but street girls arnt like that.

that is not CHOICE... the only choice there is whether or not the majority of non smoking people are willing to put up with the vile, obnoxious stench that is cigarette smoke. you talk of democracy... well if there was a referendum on this, smoking yay or nay in public places...the non smokers would still win hands down! :lol:

 

no point to address, i live i the uk. whats the point of a ban if its not enforced?

 

The majority of club-goers have by and large been non-smokers, but they never minded the smoky atmosphere of a club, they always CHOSE to go... If what you say is true Rob about the change in attitudes of Joe Public, well then Publicans and Landlords of PARTICULAR establishments would respond to that themselves WITHOUT the need for the Nanny State to pressure them into it... Simple market forces, bums on seats, etc, would force them to change.... The facts are these, Wetherspoons, O Neills, Yates, etc, cater for a different punter than the old-style "Dog and Duck" type pubs, or indeed places like Ministry of Sound or Slimelight... One size does NOT fit all.... And this is proven with every post that Russ makes....

 

I never said it was right that "johnny foreigner farmer" was treated badly by the corporations (quite the opposite in fact), and yes, we DO produce our own sugar, just as the US produces tobacco for the likes of Phillip Morris, etc..... So, your point is a bit null and void really....

 

And as Bill Hicks once said about Cannabis - "Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?" Seems to me that this would apply just as equally to the tobacco plant.....

 

You wanna talk about toxins... well, you should be more interested in protesting against a third runway at Heathrow or in stopping Category 3 Biolabs in being built in urban areas than in stopping the cultivation of a PLANT....

 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/02/446782.html

 

The majority of club-goers have by and large been non-smokers, but they never minded the smoky atmosphere of a club, they always CHOSE to go... If what you say is true Rob about the change in attitudes of Joe Public, well then Publicans and Landlords of PARTICULAR establishments would respond to that themselves WITHOUT the need for the Nanny State to pressure them into it... Simple market forces, bums on seats, etc, would force them to change.... The facts are these, Wetherspoons, O Neills, Yates, etc, cater for a different punter than the old-style "Dog and Duck" type pubs, or indeed places like Ministry of Sound or Slimelight... One size does NOT fit all.... And this is proven with every post that Russ makes....

 

chose to go or chose to put up with the smoke?... but clubs are larger venues and often have some sort of ventilation... i dunno... ive not been effected adversely in a club...but its years now since ive been. i HAVE been adversely effected in pubs, small, crowded rooms, ive been to union meetings in such places under obligation... smoke got in my throat, eyes, sinuses and my clothes stank. i have left such places feeling ill, theres no choice there!

 

i take the point that 'one size doesnt fit all', and differing venues might have a case. but if ordinary pubs were to be given the choice, theyd all go back to smoking, more then anything to save them money on the outdoor facitilies they are currently obliged to provide. pubs are not or shouldnt be the sole domaine of smokers, i dont agree with 'like it or lump it', non smokers should have the right not to be infected with what is an offensive product that damages their health if they chose to go out.

 

russ proves nothing with 'every post he makes'. he is a die hard smoker and refuses to accept how obnoxious smoke is to non smokers. perhaps because he knows its indefensible.

 

the smoking ban ISNT the main cause of pubs going under... we have been over this ground mny times before... and i too LISTEN to what the people in the trade are telling me... change in social attitudes that started long before the ban.... cheaper then ever booze from supermarkets, and the rise of 'family' pubs (abit like big agri-businesses bought out family farms creating huge estates in post war farming) have shifted the emphisis away from 'blokes' pubs. ironically its these 'blokes' pubs that hold rather 'traditional' values towards foreigners, women and oh yes.... gays! nice work russ! :lol: lets reverse the smoking ban so 'blokes' can be 'blokes' again!

err Rob.... after reading that last post I have to ask... are you sure you're not a smoker? Of the wacky kind? WTF??? :lol:

 

'Blokes' pubs??? eh???????? What planet are you living on, Rob? You seem to be sailing worryingly close to claiming normal people in normal pubs will all be racist homophobic numbskulls. Maybe in your neck of the woods, sunshine, but not in mine thankyou very much.

 

Rob - the smoking ban IS the main cause of pubs and clubs closing - your feeble claims that it's cheap booze from Asdas that's hit them is... well... feeble. Booze has, forever and a day, been dirt cheap in supermarkets making not a jot of difference to the licensing trade. And you quite rightly state that, given the choice, publicans would absolutely revert back to running establishments where smoking was allowed. Why? Not for the reason you gave- expensive outdoor areas (they have them already, anyway, so why would it matter when, a few years down the line, landlords were given the choice).. the reason is.... they want bums on seats. And since people have been forced outside in the rain and bluster to smoke, usually all night if truth be told, people - smokers AND their non smoking friends... well, they simply stay at home and have their own soirees. So Mr Landlord's takings plummet. Simple.

 

As for the cost - surely a landlord's costs wuld go UP by allowing smoking? Decorating costs, for one thing, are ASTRONOMICAL for pubs. Smoking in pubs would ensure a lot more need for the place to be decorated a lot more regularly, surely?

 

Who on earth are you speaking to in the licensing trade that denies the smoking bn has adversely affected profits, Rob? I mean, really.... even anti and non smoking landlords can see their takings really aint what they were before the ban.... a friend of mine, a non smoker pub owner, absolutely refuses to enforce the ban... and if anyone's offended, they can simply go somewhere else. End of. He's never been caught, cautioned or dobbed in... and why? Because his customers, a cross section of smokers and non smokers, embrace his "go fukk them" attitude. His attitude is it's HIS pub, HIS business, HIS money and HIS CHOICE. And his customers choose to support this attitude, much like they have done in the less uptight European countries where the smoking ban is laughed at and shrugged off. And quite right too.

 

Don't even try to say that now MORE people are going out because pubs and clubs are smoke-free...... check the listings for any dance magazine, for starters.... where there was half a magazine of listings for club nights old and new.... now it's nowhere near as much...... I can tell you, from my own experience nationwide, dance clubs hold a majority of smokers - especially when the said clubbers are off their nuts.... and smoking outside and dancing... doesn't mix.

 

As for being a 'die hard smoker' - far from it... I'm a die-hard PRO-CHOICE kind of person, Rob. I think landlords should be given the CHOICE. Don't you?

 

Yes the drab anti-brigade won the right to smoke free pubs - but in the end EVERYBODY loses - because smoke free or not.... within 10 years we'll have no bloody pubs left. Good work, eh? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rob - the smoking ban IS the main cause of pubs and clubs closing - your feeble claims that it's cheap booze from Asdas that's hit them is... well... feeble. Booze has, forever and a day, been dirt cheap in supermarkets making not a jot of difference to the licensing trade.

No it hasn't. It's only in recent years that supermarkets have reduced prices so much that they now actually make a loss on a lot of the alcohol they sell.