Mate, aint you even looking at the statistics as russ has pointed out - a 13% downturn since the ban was introduced in the places it has been... This is a disaster for the trade, you just cannot reconcile that fact... Of course people's drinking habits are changing - the sodding Govt is forcing people to basically have house parties instead of going down the pub... The only way publicans are gonna recoup their losses is to raise the prices - AGAIN... Which will probably mean more people saying "naah, sod it, let's go down the offie....".

 

id suggest that overpriced pints/shots/drinks in general have something to do with it too! plus many of us are now turning to wine as oposed to a pint.

 

i saw a report on tv that said the only places to suffer from the ban was mens working clubs and ordinary family pubs have not declined in trade.

but isn't it a fairly large-ish city itself...? On a par with Norwich or Reading I would've thought....

Derby is quite small actually.. Norwhich is easily bigger, i don't know about Reading.

 

Derby is ace i'll have you know... apart from the weird people who harass me when i go into it.

Derby is ace i'll have you know... apart from the weird people who harass me when i go into it.

 

 

people like me?....lol.

sooner get bottled then lung cancer m8....

 

Erm, that's a rather bizarre statement dude.... If a broken bottle pierces a major artery, you're fukked....

 

sooner get bottled then lung cancer m8....

 

Lung cancer? From second-hand smoke? Rob... face the medical facts - there IS no medical evidence WHATSOEVER linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer - nothing - at all. Even the doctor who originally linked lung cancer to smoking has rubbished the governments false claims regarding this.

 

Why? Because they're LIES, Rob. I'm shocked that you of all people actually belive this propaganda. Are you sure you haven't started reading the Sun on the sly?

 

Whilst second-hand smoke DOES irritate your eyes and smell on your clothes.... there is NO evidence linking it to cancer. Of ANY form.

Lung cancer? From second-hand smoke? Rob... face the medical facts - there IS no medical evidence WHATSOEVER linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer - nothing - at all. Even the doctor who originally linked lung cancer to smoking has rubbished the governments false claims regarding this.

 

Why? Because they're LIES, Rob. I'm shocked that you of all people actually belive this propaganda. Are you sure you haven't started reading the Sun on the sly?

 

Whilst second-hand smoke DOES irritate your eyes and smell on your clothes.... there is NO evidence linking it to cancer. Of ANY form.

 

I think Roy Castle did die from secondary smoke though mate... But his case was an extreme one and it should not be used as a typical example... Castle was playing Jazz trumpet in bars every night FOR YEARS and was sucking up far more air, because he played a wind instrument, than the average person would... And we're talking about a time when everyone and their dog smoked so the cumulative effects in his case would be far greater than an average joe punter who goes out to the pub with their mates once every week or two...

 

I would say that secondary smoke can lead to respitory complaints such as ashtma or emphysema, but other environmental factors such as air pollution and a genetic predisposition play a part in those as well (why do you think that cases of these complaints are rising at an exponential rate per annum..? More cars on the road and more planes in the sky = more pollution, a very simple equation.... Less people are smoking these days than in the 50s and 60s, so why are cases of respitory complaints much higher these days than in that period...? :thinking: )... I don't believe that it can lead to actual lung cancer except in the most extreme of cases, such as Roy Castle, and his case is unique, or at best, very rare, and is falsely jumped upon by all the Anti-smoking lobbyists who try to claim that it is typical... They lie, they propagandise... The facts are you have to smoke about a pack of fags every day for about 20/30/40 years before you'll be likely to contract lung cancer, I somehow doubt that in a weekly visit to the pub that you are likely to be 'passively smoking' the equivalent of a hundred fags....

 

As far as I'm concerned, pollution is the problem, not smoking...

as far as I'm concerned... Roy Castle's widow is the bloody problem :angry:

 

And the pious, smug-ass non-smokers who think they have a divine right to determine what people can and cannot do.

And the pious, smug-ass non-smokers who think they have a divine right to determine what people can and cannot do.

 

but russ, this is the very reason i am so anti smoking... i lived for years with people who were 'i want to smoke so i shall and bugger you' ... as if smokers have the divine right to inflict their filth on us!

 

what right have you got to do that to me?...

 

i do not believe that passive smoking is harmless, it a friggin POISON ffs! but wether or not it is harmless... its still offensive!

 

and scott.... still going on about pollution.. GET OUT THE CITY, BREATHE CLEAN FRESH AIR then go into a smokey pub and maybe youll understand why the majority of people dont agree that pollution is the problem! london is a cess pit, the air IS foul and black appears on your hanky when you blow your nose... BUT IT AINT LIKE THAT for most of us, away from larger conerbations.

 

and scott.... still going on about pollution.. GET OUT THE CITY, BREATHE CLEAN FRESH AIR then go into a smokey pub and maybe youll understand why the majority of people dont agree that pollution is the problem! london is a cess pit, the air IS foul and black appears on your hanky when you blow your nose... BUT IT AINT LIKE THAT for most of us, away from larger conerbations.

 

Mate, the countryside is NOT some hermetically sealed bio-dome you know.... What effects the planet, effects the planet as a whole, not just the cities where the pollution is most visible, eventually, it will effect you folks out there in the country in some way, you aint somehow 'immune' from it.... You might not think that pollution effects you because you do not see its immediate effect, but it does indirectly.... Planes do have flight patterns over the countryside... In fact, most of the big airports are in the sticks, Heathrow and Gatwick are small towns/villages, and airport expansion plans are just gonna make things worse... Edinburgh and Glasgow airports are a fair few miles out of the city itself, and where do you think the Govt is gonna build all these nice Nuclear power plants they have planned, in the middle of London or Manchester...?? Nope, I think you'll be more likely to have one on your doorstep than I will.... Dont think these things do not affect you in some way, just cos you cant see it doesn't mean it's not happening....

 

If the majority of people dont agree that pollution is a problem, then the majority are idiots with their heads buried in the sand...

I am taking a big risk with this post (don't ask) but I really can't believe some of the stuff that is written in this thread and yes I am firmly in the no smoking camp

 

Smoking is banned on trains and banned on planes so why haven't smokers got enough willpower to sit for 2 or 3 hours in a pub without lighting up ? I travelled on 2 flights Monday one of 4 hrs and the other of 13.5 hrs and I am sure there were a lot of smokers on those 2 flights but they managed to get through all that period without lighting up so why can't someone in a bar ? has there been a massive drop in airline travel since the smoking ban ? god no airline travel has continued to boom, have 13% of airlines closed down since the smoking ban ? no so why are pubs any different ? if people can go on long haul flights to America, Australia, Far East etc without having a fag then they can bloody well last a couple of hours in a pub without lighting up :)

I am taking a big risk with this post (don't ask) but I really can't believe some of the stuff that is written in this thread and yes I am firmly in the no smoking camp

 

Smoking is banned on trains and banned on planes so why haven't smokers got enough willpower to sit for 2 or 3 hours in a pub without lighting up ? I travelled on 2 flights Monday one of 4 hrs and the other of 13.5 hrs and I am sure there were a lot of smokers on those 2 flights but they managed to get through all that period without lighting up so why can't someone in a bar ? has there been a massive drop in airline travel since the smoking ban ? god no airline travel has continued to boom, have 13% of airlines closed down since the smoking ban ? no so why are pubs any different ? if people can go on long haul flights to America, Australia, Far East etc without having a fag then they can bloody well last a couple of hours in a pub without lighting up :)

 

It;s a totally different context mate... Planes, trains, etc have kids on board, most pubs tend not to have kids running around - well, not the ones I go to at any rate... Is this what we want...? Every pub in the fukkin' country becoming a "Gastropub", 'family-oriented' instead of places where adults meet to enjoy each other's company without bloody kids tagging along....? A pub is specifically an adult environment, or at least it should be, and in this environment adult activities should be expected to take place, smoking is one of those activities..... A different context from travel.. Everyone needs to travel at some point, so in that context it would be selfish if a person were to start lighting up a fag, but going to a pub is entirely voluntary, and the facts are that there has been a downturn in places where a smoking ban has happened, I've seen it myself when I went up to Scotland recently, pubs normally really busy were about half full, cant be a coincidence - the anti-smokers made a big noise and got their way, but they aint going out to replace the smokers who are deserting the pubs... I think another aspect of it is that people dont want to be preached at about what they can or cant do when they go out, so instead more an more house parties will probably occur, 'staying in' will be the new 'going out'... Why go out somewhere where you're being dictated to that you cant smoke AND have to pay way over the odds for the booze, when you can organise a house party with your mates, buy in about twice or three times the amount of booze for round about the same money you'd splash out in a bar or club, not have to put up with someone telling you what you can or cant do, not have to deal with surly bouncers, not have to pay ludicrous cover charges, listen to the music that YOU want to hear..... The pub trade is gonna die on its arse mate....

pollution is a problem, but thats not the topic of this thread! there is no comparison at all between air pollution outside and being within an enclosed space where smoke is being generated!

 

you go on about car owners... but fag smokers drive too!

 

pubs have been changing for years as less and less people smoke, drink beer, and men are more family orientated then before thanks to equality and less machismo, thats why pubs have gone down the 'family event' route.

 

whats 'adult' about smoking anyway?...

 

i ought to get some quotes of some guys i know, in their 40's, bodies fooked because they were hardend smokers....... i think russ will live to regret being a smoker, i know many who do.. plus the ex smokers who now notice just how unpleasant and invasive smoke is...

 

as for beting bottled.... man, id sooner bleed to death then suffer lung cancer... however, ive never been bottled, ive never been threatend with a bottle and the chances are that it wouldnt kill me!

 

i believe passive smoking is harmful, theres currently a tv ad stating as much, if that was a lie like russ claims... then wheres the lawsuit coming from? im sure the big wealthy ciggy manufacturers would seize the chance to stop this if it really was false...

i believe passive smoking is harmful, theres currently a tv ad stating as much, if that was a lie like russ claims... then wheres the lawsuit coming from? im sure the big wealthy ciggy manufacturers would seize the chance to stop this if it really was false...

 

Not saying that it's not potentially harmful, but when you look at the facts - less people are smoking these days, but more people are contracting respitory complaints, pollution levels are going up, air quality is becoming worse...... Coincidence..? I think not.... Smoking is NOT to blame for everything that's going on here, FACT! And it pisses me off that some people with vested interests are propogating this bullsh!t in order to try and divert attention away from other factors which are contributing to the problem of the health of the nation...

 

As for lawsuits - it's bloody easy to bring a case against Big Tobacco companies these days, nobody likes them, everyone hates them, you aint gonna find a jury that'll be very sympathetic to the cause of Marlboro or Benson and Hedges mate.... I know I wouldn't be, I'd fukk them up on a general principle if I was given the opportunity (just as I would fukk up Oil Companies, McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Microsoft...) and hand a out a stupid sum for damages if I was a foreman of a jury.... Tobacco companies know this so that's why they dont contest things these days, their losses are less by admitting liability than by going to court and fighting a case when they might be up against someone like me in the jury.... :lol:

i dont claim that all respiritory illness are cause by smokers, but its clearly unhealthy and undesirable for non smokers to suffer for other peoples pleasure..

 

would you allow adults to have loud music on in their own home if it was interfering with your sleep? if theres an unreasonable noise youd complain! its the same thing... people can do what tf they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else.

 

im suggesting that if that frequently shown advert is lies, the tobacco industry would sue the makers of the ad.. the ad must be in the right ball court at least!

anyway.. im going back outside in the lovely clean fresh warm spring air! :P

iwould you allow adults to have loud music on in their own home if it was interfering with your sleep? if theres an unreasonable noise youd complain! its the same thing... people can do what tf they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else.

 

Slightly different, that's my HOME, a Pub is not my home. I dont go out to a pub to sleep mate..... :lol: I kinda have choice about whether or not I go to a pub where people will be smoking...

you know what i mean though... its about invasion of personal space. anyway pubs will be smoke free soon :P

you know what i mean though... its about invasion of personal space. anyway pubs will be smoke free soon :P

 

Yeah, and likely 'punter free' as well.... -_- Like I say, it wont bother me if there's no smoking, I dont really do it except with friends that do, I just dont like the Nannying aspect of it, and I certainly dont like the way the Politicians worked in their little immunity for their drinking den in the Houses of Parliament.... Fukkin' hypocrites.... <_< "Do as we say, not as we do" eh...? And they wonder why practically nobody in the country actually goes out and votes anymore..... -_-

 

Yeah, and likely 'punter free' as well.... -_- Like I say, it wont bother me if there's no smoking, I dont really do it except with friends that do, I just dont like the Nannying aspect of it, and I certainly dont like the way the Politicians worked in their little immunity for their drinking den in the Houses of Parliament.... Fukkin' hypocrites.... <_< "Do as we say, not as we do" eh...? And they wonder why practically nobody in the country actually goes out and votes anymore..... -_-

That makes me so mad. :arrr:

its clearly unhealthy and undesirable for non smokers to suffer for other peoples pleasure..

 

thast's EXACTLY the way I feel about you breeders dragging your beastly children out to pubs, restaurants, cinemas, on buses, trains and planes. WE have to suffer for YOUR pleasure.......