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:

 

100% spot on in agreement with Russ here... Although, mate, there will still be pubs, it's just that they'll all be Wetherspoons' or "Plastic Paddy" pubs like O'Neills and Yates, which is just as frightening a prospect as no pubs at all if you ask me..... :lol:

 

Rob, I am NOT a "hard core smoker" and yet I can still see that this ban enforced upon the non-gastro pubs and Clubs is absolutely, 100% wrongheaded... Let the likes of Wetherspoons, Yates or O'Neills chain pubs do what THEY want (and they'd already pretty much banned smoking from their pubs before the ban even hit), and let the likes of Russ' mates and the friends of mine who run clubs such as Vagabonds, Slimelight or Reptile, do what THEY want, there aint no one under 18 going to these places.... The simple fact of the matter is, as I have already pointed out before, it was BRUSSELS who came away with this ludicrous decision of trying to get a "one size fits all pubs" policy without apparently even looking into the issue properly or appreciating that different venues cater for different groups of people.. You have SOME pubs that are family-oriented (your Gastropubs), and you have SOME pubs that are definitely "Over 21s" only, which DONT sell food and DONT cater for families.... The Law should have differentiated between the two things (and clubs also, particularly Private Members clubs such as Slimelight), it didn't, therefore, it is BAD LAW, IMHO.... And by the fact that most pub landlords in France and Germany are basically sticking two fingers up to Brussels, I'd say that many people in continental Europe also feel it's bad law....

 

The simple fact of the matter is, as I have already pointed out before, it was BRUSSELS who came away with this ludicrous decision of trying to get a "one size fits all pubs" policy without apparently even looking into the issue properly or appreciating that different venues cater for different groups of people.. You have SOME pubs that are family-oriented (your Gastropubs), and you have SOME pubs that are definitely "Over 21s" only, which DONT sell food and DONT cater for families....

NO IT WASN'T. The European Commission would like smoking to be banned in public places but there is no European Directive on the issue. The decisions to ban smoking in various EU countries have been made by individual legislatures. Some, such as Spain, have yet to impose a ban.

Some, such as Spain, have yet to impose a ban.

 

Because Spain knows that, like France, Portugal and Holland.... the rather more single-minded Spanish population would do what we should have done... and stuck 2 meaty fingers up to this ban and its turgid little followers.

 

As for your indignation that, no, supermarkets did NOT sell dirt-cheap alcohol before the ban... err.... I can only assume you lived in a convent for the past 20 years.

Scott - I don't even class O'Neills and Wetherspoons as pubs to be honest - they're the Poundstretchers of the licensing trade - cheap microwave 'meals', cheap watery beer, and full of dopey chavs, hopeless day-long-drinking alcoholics and inbreds. Oh, and the rancid habit that REALLY gets my goat - the breeders dragging their offspring into an adult environment. Ghastly. Drinking dens and children...DO. NOT. MIX. Ever. :arrr: :arrr:

As for your indignation that, no, supermarkets did NOT sell dirt-cheap alcohol before the ban... err.... I can only assume you lived in a convent for the past 20 years.

I didn't say any such thing. I said that they had only been selling at a loss in fairly recent years. It's been cheaper than pubs for many years but the gap has been rising steadily.

... the pubs i frequent have NOT suffered BECAUSE of the smoking ban alone. maybe in some areas they have, i cannot speak for all pubs countrywide! i know people in the trade, clare WORKS in the trade, the assertion that the ban is the only factor in pubs closing is simply NOT TRUE. ive already agreed that it is a factor. but the main reason is simply a change in the way we enjoy our liesure time. the decline in pubs was going on long before the ban, people just dont go out to pubs now regardless of the ban. our drinking habits are changing with far more wine being drunk now, mainly with meals at home, thats another contributory factor. plus IN REAL TERMS the price per unit of alcohol is much cheaper from a supermarket whilst the increase prices at the pump is at a record high... THATS more likely to be the main reason pubs are closing... like i said before, i know of NO-ONE out of the large ammount of people i know, ordinary pub going blokes, who have stopped going just because they cant smoke! are smokers really that mardy?

 

pro-choice? what about non smokers choice to have the right to go to a 'real' pub without getting that filthy smoke affecting your health? you pro's have never yet answered the question 'why should we put up with it'? are you really suggesting that non smokers dont have the right to go in a smoke free pub?

... the pubs i frequent have NOT suffered BECAUSE of the smoking ban alone. maybe in some areas they have, i cannot speak for all pubs countrywide! i know pro-choice? what about non smokers choice to have the right to go to a 'real' pub without getting that filthy smoke affecting your health? you pro's have never yet answered the question 'why should we put up with it'? are you really suggesting that non smokers dont have the right to go in a smoke free pub?

 

Rob have you lost the will to read?

 

I am PRO CHOICE... that means PRO giving landlords a CHOICE on whether to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment. And PRO non-smokers having the right to venture to a venue they know CHOOSES to be a non-smoking one.

 

What you're saying is that you are ANTI choice because you think that smokers should NOT be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE in a public house.

 

And Rob, you 'put up with it' for all your drinking life up til a few years ago - what a hardship that must have been. In case you failed to notice through the fug of fag smoke.... a pub is an ADULT place where ADULTS drink, smoke, gamble, swear, whatever.... not a library or a village hall. A pub without smoke is as much fun as a brothel without whores.

 

And as you're so fervent about 'filthy smoke affecting your health'... well I can only presume you don't own a car... after all... the smoke you'd belch would adversely affect my health, cause me discomfort with my nose, chest, eyes... after all, why would you own a car when public transport is so good these days? It's a choice, one that some people find completely abhorrent and unacceptable after all.

 

Isn't it?

Rob have you lost the will to read?

 

I am PRO CHOICE... that means PRO giving landlords a CHOICE on whether to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment. And PRO non-smokers having the right to venture to a venue they know CHOOSES to be a non-smoking one.

 

What you're saying is that you are ANTI choice because you think that smokers should NOT be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE in a public house.

 

And Rob, you 'put up with it' for all your drinking life up til a few years ago - what a hardship that must have been. In case you failed to notice through the fug of fag smoke.... a pub is an ADULT place where ADULTS drink, smoke, gamble, swear, whatever.... not a library or a village hall. A pub without smoke is as much fun as a brothel without whores.

 

And as you're so fervent about 'filthy smoke affecting your health'... well I can only presume you don't own a car... after all... the smoke you'd belch would adversely affect my health, cause me discomfort with my nose, chest, eyes... after all, why would you own a car when public transport is so good these days? It's a choice, one that some people find completely abhorrent and unacceptable after all.

 

Isn't it?

 

i could say the same to you m8... ive already said that landlords given the choice would probably allow smoking regardless of how many customers actually smoke! the pubs i go too for my quizes only have a few people 'go outside for a fag break' , the vast majority stop in. so thered be no choice, thered be no smoke free pubs.

 

i think smokers can smoke wtf they want as long as it doesnt impinge on others who dont like smoke... i like music, loud, have i or anyone the right to play my music in my house as loud as i want to at any time regardless of what my neighbours think?... no.

 

i didnt go to smokey pubs, and i dont agree that having a bar full of rancid smoke is necerssary to 'have a good time'... as for your daft comparison to vehicle emissions...that would hold if you had them in a confined space... they arnt and im not against outdoor smoking. i have NEVER been adversely affected by traffic fumes... but then again i dont frequent a crowed city... travel is part of life, we HAVE to travel, we dont have to smoke...it adds nothing to the human body except a coctail of concentrated toxins.

 

.

 

i didnt go to smokey pubs, and i dont agree that having a bar full of rancid smoke is necerssary to 'have a good time'... as for your daft comparison to vehicle emissions...that would hold if you had them in a confined space... they arnt and im not against outdoor smoking. i have NEVER been adversely affected by traffic fumes... but then again i dont frequent a crowed city... travel is part of life, we HAVE to travel, we dont have to smoke...it adds nothing to the human body except a coctail of concentrated toxins.

 

We have to travel, sure, but does it necessarily have to be by car, and does it really need to be every frickin' journey, not just the work-related ones...? Frankly, as far as London goes, you could get around quicker by bicycle, horse and cart or bloody huskies probably.....LOL.... :rolleyes: And at least horse-$h!t can benefit us by providing us with manure to plant crops...... Vehicle emissions can never be anything other than detrimental to human health...

 

If you dont like smokey bars, well, you dont have to go to one, you cant realistically avoid vehicle emissions however, even if you dont live in a place where you're directly affected, you're still indirectly affected by the pollution to the atmosphere which has built up gradually over the past 50 years or so.... No one has ever had a choice as far as that goes mate.....

 

I am PRO CHOICE... that means PRO giving landlords a CHOICE on whether to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment. And PRO non-smokers having the right to venture to a venue they know CHOOSES to be a non-smoking one.

 

Spot on Russ.. PRO choice does not necessarily mean you're a hard-core smoker.. I'm not... So, as a NON-smoker, surely I should be loving this smoke-free environment in clubs, and not having smelly hair or clothes if I were to go with Rob's logic... Well, errr, it aint as simple as that.... The fundamental principle here is that Clubs and bars are adult environments, where adults should have the choice of whether they want to frequent a smoking or non-smoking establishment and where landlords and club-owners themselves have a the choice to make their establishments smoking or non-smoking according to what their particular regular patrons wish... Each pub/club then has a choice. Simple, and democratic too.....

 

i agree that idle buggers use cars too much, and not public transport or ... shock ... walk!

 

i dont agree that there is a choice... it only takes 1 smoker to pollute the atmosphere.

 

i dont agree that vehicle emissions are anywhere near as bad as smoke in an enclosed room

 

avoid smokey clubs/bars/pubs?... but what if theres an event on at that pub? miss it or get polluted on... nah...

 

'adult environment?... sorry but the adults i mix with dont smoke! since when has smoking been a pre-requisite for adulthood?

 

what happend to the choice not to get someone elses waste product invading your body?

 

this is daft and its going around in circles.... there is no good reason at all why a non smoker should put up with someone elses smoke, not 1.

i agree that idle buggers use cars too much, and not public transport or ... shock ... walk!

 

i dont agree that there is a choice... it only takes 1 smoker to pollute the atmosphere.

 

i dont agree that vehicle emissions are anywhere near as bad as smoke in an enclosed room

 

avoid smokey clubs/bars/pubs?... but what if theres an event on at that pub? miss it or get polluted on... nah...

 

'adult environment?... sorry but the adults i mix with dont smoke! since when has smoking been a pre-requisite for adulthood?

 

what happend to the choice not to get someone elses waste product invading your body?

 

this is daft and its going around in circles.... there is no good reason at all why a non smoker should put up with someone elses smoke, not 1.

 

So, you dont believe that landlords and publicans or club-owners should've had the choice themselves of whether or not to run a smoking or non-smoking after a consultation with their regular punters who would surely be affected the most by a ban or no ban, and who are responsible for most , if not all, of that pub's trade...? Well, "seig heil" to you too mate, here was me thinking we actually lived in a democracy where people had a right to a voice in decisions such as this (and I dont see why Pubs or clubs couldn't take a poll or vote of this nature amongst their regular patrons in order to find out what it was they actually wanted; I mean, after all if you're so bloody sure that "the times, they are a changin", then the vast majority of pub and club-goers will voluntarily vote for their locals and their clubs to become non-smoking without the need for a draconian ban from on high)..... -_- An individual bar or pub has to cater for its audience first and foremost, so if that audience is made up mainly of smokers and their friends and they choose to have a smoking bar through a poll or a vote, then that's that, if they choose to have a non-smoking establishment, then similarly, that's that....

 

The facts are these - pubs have closed down because the punters are staying away because of the smoking ban, Russ is telling you this, he's given you enough examples of the fact, and I myself know of clubs who have suffered a dip in punters since the ban, and you militant, finger-wagging, Pro-banners sure aint been going out regularly to make up the friggin' numbers that have been lost in a lot of these establishments, so, well done you whingers you'll kill the vibrant pub culture in this country within a generation for it to be replaced by Wetherspoons, Plastic Paddy pubs and those bloody Sports Bars like the friggin' "Walkabout"... Yeah, great <_<

 

This argument is going round in circles because you bloody-mindedly refuse to acknowlege that people should actually have a choice and NOT be dictated to by a bunch of w'ankers who dont even follow their own bloody rules (oh, so nice for the MPs and Lords to have their own Parliamentary watering holes EXCLUDED from the ban innit?)..... <_<

 

 

 

 

So, you dont believe that landlords and publicans or club-owners should've had the choice themselves of whether or not to run a smoking or non-smoking after a consultation with their regular punters who would surely be affected the most by a ban or no ban, and who are responsible for most , if not all, of that pub's trade...? Well, "seig heil" to you too mate, here was me thinking we actually lived in a democracy where people had a right to a voice in decisions such as this (and I dont see why Pubs or clubs couldn't take a poll or vote of this nature amongst their regular patrons in order to find out what it was they actually wanted; I mean, after all if you're so bloody sure that "the times, they are a changin", then the vast majority of pub and club-goers will voluntarily vote for their locals and their clubs to become non-smoking without the need for a draconian ban from on high)..... -_- An individual bar or pub has to cater for its audience first and foremost, so if that audience is made up mainly of smokers and their friends and they choose to have a smoking bar through a poll or a vote, then that's that, if they choose to have a non-smoking establishment, then similarly, that's that....

 

The facts are these - pubs have closed down because the punters are staying away because of the smoking ban, Russ is telling you this, he's given you enough examples of the fact, and I myself know of clubs who have suffered a dip in punters since the ban, and you militant, finger-wagging, Pro-banners sure aint been going out regularly to make up the friggin' numbers that have been lost in a lot of these establishments, so, well done you whingers you'll kill the vibrant pub culture in this country within a generation for it to be replaced by Wetherspoons, Plastic Paddy pubs and those bloody Sports Bars like the friggin' "Walkabout"... Yeah, great <_<

 

This argument is going round in circles because you bloody-mindedly refuse to acknowlege that people should actually have a choice and NOT be dictated to by a bunch of w'ankers who dont even follow their own bloody rules (oh, so nice for the MPs and Lords to have their own Parliamentary watering holes EXCLUDED from the ban innit?)..... <_<

 

 

im not replying to this scott cos ALL the points have already been covered... and im bored of arguing the toss... as is everyone else, thats why no one posts on this thread.

 

but i find your last para contradictory... its ok for smokers to inflict their filth on others, but its not ok for non smokers to object?.. get this... SMOKERS ARE IN THE MINORITY.

look what i found....

 

"The reasons for the rapid closure rate have their roots back in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher abolished tied houses, where a landlord was obliged to buy beer from only one brewery, in the name of free trade. One consequence was the creation of a new monopoly now known as the 'pubco' model, where large, often public companies own huge chains of pubs and exert pressure on landlords to carry certain brands and set prices."

 

guardian blog.

 

see its all THATCHERS fault! :lol:

look what i found....

 

"The reasons for the rapid closure rate have their roots back in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher abolished tied houses, where a landlord was obliged to buy beer from only one brewery, in the name of free trade. One consequence was the creation of a new monopoly now known as the 'pubco' model, where large, often public companies own huge chains of pubs and exert pressure on landlords to carry certain brands and set prices."

 

guardian blog.

 

see its all THATCHERS fault! :lol:

:cheer: It always is

look what i found....

 

"The reasons for the rapid closure rate have their roots back in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher abolished tied houses, where a landlord was obliged to buy beer from only one brewery, in the name of free trade. One consequence was the creation of a new monopoly now known as the 'pubco' model, where large, often public companies own huge chains of pubs and exert pressure on landlords to carry certain brands and set prices."

 

guardian blog.

 

see its all THATCHERS fault! :lol:

 

That doesn't even make any sense... This happened in the 80s... So, how does that explain the "rapid" closure rates in the 2000s...? 30 years doesn't exactly sound very "rapid" to me, for this to be a "cause-and-effect" scenario for what's happening now.... Russ isn't talking about stuff that happened in the 1980s mate, he's talking about things that have been happening in the past five years or so, since the smoking ban.... I personally cant see how something Thatcher did in the 80s to the pub trade can a major factor now..... Sorry, seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and just merely quoting a passage from The Guardian doesn't automatically make it so.... It seems FAR more likely to me that the smoking ban is more a major contributing factor to pubs closing down NOW in 2010, than some piece of legislation from the 80s being responsible....

That doesn't even make any sense... This happened in the 80s... So, how does that explain the "rapid" closure rates in the 2000s...? 30 years doesn't exactly sound very "rapid" to me, for this to be a "cause-and-effect" scenario for what's happening now.... Russ isn't talking about stuff that happened in the 1980s mate, he's talking about things that have been happening in the past five years or so, since the smoking ban.... I personally cant see how something Thatcher did in the 80s to the pub trade can a major factor now..... Sorry, seems like a bit of a stretch to me, and just merely quoting a passage from The Guardian doesn't automatically make it so.... It seems FAR more likely to me that the smoking ban is more a major contributing factor to pubs closing down NOW in 2010, than some piece of legislation from the 80s being responsible....

 

how many times.... has ANYONE here actually known somebody who stopped going to the pub BECAUSE of the smoking ban?...cos i bloody well dont and i know alot of people.

 

fact... the decline in the pub trade is not down to the smoking ban and the smoking ban alone... that might well be a contributory factor if anybody is damned mardy enough... anybody that idiotic couldnt have thought much of the pub in the first place.

 

the legislation thatcher passed in the 80's lead to the creation of the large chains like weatherspoons etc you see today. the very same parellel can be found in post war agriculture, with big businesses buying up small family farms.

 

so..

- theres a change in pub ownership plus the creation of 'family' pub

- thers a change in drinking habits, we drink more wine now (at home with a meal) and less beer

- there are fewer people smoking now

- price per unit in supermarkets has never been so cheap

- prices at the bar have never been so high (due to taxes and not profit)

- theres a change in how we spend our liesure time with multi chanel tv and games consoles.

- theres been a recession on

- the decline was going on long before the ban, id suggest the recession was mainly to blame for the more rapid decline in recent years, because all the people i know in the pubs i go in do not cite the ban per se as the reason.

 

so only a complete idiot would ignore these facts and blame ONLY the smoking ban, like scott has done! :P

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.

 

Oh not THIS again...

 

I'm so sick sick sick to bloody death of landlords blaming the smoking ban for their closures. Politicial movement always effects how businesses operate; both positively and negatively. It's up to the business to be progressive and think how to move with the times.

 

I live in what some could be described as a deprived area of Salford, yet the only pubs that have closed down are due to ongoing violence and fights; the under-class and lower working class are usual hard smokers yet the pubs that have NOT been victim to violence in my area seem to be doing rather well (not that I would ever step foot in any other them...!).

 

Those here that are pro-smoking in pubs are just acting selfish. Get the f*** outside if you want to smoke!!!

Edited June 1, 201015 yr by ScottyEm

- theres a change in pub ownership plus the creation of 'family' pub

- thers a change in drinking habits, we drink more wine now (at home with a meal) and less beer

- there are fewer people smoking now

- price per unit in supermarkets has never been so cheap

- prices at the bar have never been so high (due to taxes and not profit)

- theres a change in how we spend our liesure time with multi chanel tv and games consoles.

- theres been a recession on

- the decline was going on long before the ban, id suggest the recession was mainly to blame for the more rapid decline in recent years, because all the people i know in the pubs i go in do not cite the ban per se as the reason.

 

The pub trade was generally handling most of that though.... The actual straw that finally broke the proverbial camel's back for a lot of the more "traditional", or non-chain type establishments is quite clearly the smoking ban, THIS has been the final nail in the coffin for a lot of places, you simply cannot deny that, so much for the Govt wanting the HELP the small businessman, they've done nothing of the sort, in fact everything Nu Labor and the Tories have done as far as pubs go has clearly been to benefit the homogenised chain pubs and kill off the real character of pub-going in this country, something I think we should ALL be up in arms about....

 

And besides, you dont seem to see the inherent dangers that exist in allowing this bunch of Anti-Smoking zealots free-reign to ride roughshod over peoples' choices and free will.... The pro-smokers pretty much accepted the ban on public transport and restaurants/cafes, that's just basically FAIR... Also, if the likes of Wetherspoons,etc, decides it wants to be a "family-oriented" pub and ban smoking, again, that is FAIR because those are pretty much a "restaurant-with-beer" and they have kids there too... What is most definitely NOT FAIR is dictating terms to the rest of the establishments who may NOT want to make their establishments non-smoking, or, indeed "family friendly", why SHOULD those venues (including a lot of "Alternative", "Metal", etc, oriented pubs) be forced to change and turn themselves into some ghastly "Gastropub" with bloody kids running riot and getting in the way of MY path to the bar? Do you seriously want EVERY pub to be the same Rob...? And this includes almost certainly Private Members clubs which people pay annual FEES to be a member of, smokers included.... These definitely should have been exempted from a blanket ban and a VOTE be put to the membership whether or not they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking... This was never done, and I feel that is totally undemocratic and dictatorial...

 

So, the Pro-smoking lobby has been entirely reasonable, it's the ANTIs that are being completely and utterly unreasonable as I see it... And now they want to stop people smoking in their OWN CARS???? Yeah, okay, how long's it gonna take before that becomes OWN HOMES? Or how long's it gonna take for unfair emotional pressures and guilt trips being put on smokers who go out with non-smokers to give up their "habit" and force them into smokers rehab...? "Oh, but darling, if you loved me, you'd quit....." oh FUKK OFF!!! If you love someone, you love them UNCONDITIONALLY....

 

In fact, how long's it gonna take for those Anti-smoking fascists to approach film-makers and dictate to them... "Oh, you cant make any more films with people smoking in them... Because that just encourages smoking..."... Yeah, right.... Bit of a bugger if you wanna make a film set in the 40s, 50s and 60s that innit.....? But hey, let's go one step further and start tinkering with all the films made from the era.... With all this wonderful computer technology we now have, we could, quite conceivably digitally airbrush the cigarettes right out of Bogie, Bacall and James Cagney's fingers.... What a wonderful contribution to cinema that would be eh..? Right up there with "Colorisation" and "Remakes" of Classic movies..... <_<

 

Dont think it could happen? Dont bet on it.... The zealotry of the Anti-Smokers knows no limits.....

The pub trade was generally handling most of that though.... The actual straw that finally broke the proverbial camel's back for a lot of the more "traditional", or non-chain type establishments is quite clearly the smoking ban, THIS has been the final nail in the coffin for a lot of places, you simply cannot deny that, so much for the Govt wanting the HELP the small businessman, they've done nothing of the sort, in fact everything Nu Labor and the Tories have done as far as pubs go has clearly been to benefit the homogenised chain pubs and kill off the real character of pub-going in this country, something I think we should ALL be up in arms about....

 

And besides, you dont seem to see the inherent dangers that exist in allowing this bunch of Anti-Smoking zealots free-reign to ride roughshod over peoples' choices and free will.... The pro-smokers pretty much accepted the ban on public transport and restaurants/cafes, that's just basically FAIR... Also, if the likes of Wetherspoons,etc, decides it wants to be a "family-oriented" pub and ban smoking, again, that is FAIR because those are pretty much a "restaurant-with-beer" and they have kids there too... What is most definitely NOT FAIR is dictating terms to the rest of the establishments who may NOT want to make their establishments non-smoking, or, indeed "family friendly", why SHOULD those venues (including a lot of "Alternative", "Metal", etc, oriented pubs) be forced to change and turn themselves into some ghastly "Gastropub" with bloody kids running riot and getting in the way of MY path to the bar? Do you seriously want EVERY pub to be the same Rob...? And this includes almost certainly Private Members clubs which people pay annual FEES to be a member of, smokers included.... These definitely should have been exempted from a blanket ban and a VOTE be put to the membership whether or not they wanted their establishment to be non-smoking... This was never done, and I feel that is totally undemocratic and dictatorial...

 

So, the Pro-smoking lobby has been entirely reasonable, it's the ANTIs that are being completely and utterly unreasonable as I see it... And now they want to stop people smoking in their OWN CARS???? Yeah, okay, how long's it gonna take before that becomes OWN HOMES? Or how long's it gonna take for unfair emotional pressures and guilt trips being put on smokers who go out with non-smokers to give up their "habit" and force them into smokers rehab...? "Oh, but darling, if you loved me, you'd quit....." oh FUKK OFF!!! If you love someone, you love them UNCONDITIONALLY....

 

In fact, how long's it gonna take for those Anti-smoking fascists to approach film-makers and dictate to them... "Oh, you cant make any more films with people smoking in them... Because that just encourages smoking..."... Yeah, right.... Bit of a bugger if you wanna make a film set in the 40s, 50s and 60s that innit.....? But hey, let's go one step further and start tinkering with all the films made from the era.... With all this wonderful computer technology we now have, we could, quite conceivably digitally airbrush the cigarettes right out of Bogie, Bacall and James Cagney's fingers.... What a wonderful contribution to cinema that would be eh..? Right up there with "Colorisation" and "Remakes" of Classic movies..... <_<

 

Dont think it could happen? Dont bet on it.... The zealotry of the Anti-Smokers knows no limits.....

 

the trade was on a downward spiral... the smoking ban merely hurried a few closures up, it and it alone was not responsible because i still dont think theres any smoker whos bloody minded (or stupid) enough to stop going to a pub because of the ban , who REALLY enjoys the pub.

 

the majority of non smokers have a right not to breathe smokey air in public places, but you call them riding roughshod over peoples choices and free will but its ok for smokers to ride roughshod over non smokers...??? inflict their smoke on us... nahh

 

i fully agree that calling for a ban in cars is wrong (unless you use the 'must be in control of the vehicle at all times' argument.)

 

ive already said that there might be a case for certain institutions to allow smoking.. but say your slimelight allowed it, and one of the punters got ill as a direct result of it, whod get sued?..the management thats who!

 

im not sure james cagney smoked m8! :P yeah bacall n bogie did, but im struggling to remember an image of cagney with one.