Heartland

I was suprised that someone else hadn't started a thread about this already. So what does everyone think about it?

I am a non-smoker so I am fairly happy with the smoking ban for my own health reasons. I am glad that they didn't make pubs have seperate areas for smokers and non-smokers as I would always end up sitting in the non-smoking section on my own as the vast majority of my friends smoke and I can't imagine that they would want to abstain just because of me.

However, I can see this issue from a smokers point of view also - it is their freedom of choice to smoke (just as it is my right to breathe clean air etc etc etc), and alot of businesses may go out of business. My housemate has already said that he will not be renewing his membership of a private club here in our town because of the ban. I think that it will be sad for "pub culture" (i.e all bundling down the pub for a laff) to evaporate.

My bassist is asthmatic and has a particularly protective mother (I should know, she's mine too ), so I can only see this as a good thing from the point of view of looking to playing in pubs, etc. Obviously there's an issue with the rights of the smoker, but looking at morally similar pass times, the law's just being brought into line. You can't shoot clay pigeons in a shopping centre (you might hurt someone) and you can't practice naturism in public (someone may find it reprehensible). There's no black and white to it, so I'm sticking to the selfish "Yay for my health" approach

A smoking ban came into effect in Sweden last summer, and was preceded by a lot of protests from smokers and pub-owners alike. You hardly ever hear any complaints these days, though, from any of the above-mentioned parties. No pubs have gone out of business, and people seem generally happy about not reeking of cigarette smoke after a night out. I think quite a few people have also kicked the habit. Myself, for instance. I used to light up routinely every time I downed a few pints.

i have no objections to no smoking pubs. protecting the rights of non-smokers to safeguard their lungs against my evil cigarette smoke is exactly what a democratic government should do for it' s citizens.
as long as they protect my right to smoke as well. they could have made it law that a large percentage of licenses granted were to non-smoking premises only , but still allowing pubs for smokers who want to smoke. instead they have to make it a wholesale ban and the rights of smokers can get to fuck.

They banned smoking here (NYC) a couple of years ago, over the objections of the bars and clubs who said that it would kill their business. It hasn't, of course, and these days I find I do smoke less given that I've got to go outside to do it (at least before midnight - it's an open secret that they won't pay the Smoke Police overtime, so they knock off at midnight, at which point the ashtrays go out on the bar and no-one seems to care.).

Dr. Lee said all I have to say, except for:

goodbye my friends

About time.

The fewer smelly c**t weezing and spluttering near me the better.

Another civil liberty eroded. Why don't they ban cars, they kill more people than cigs. Or darts boards in pubs, there's a health risk if ever I've seen one, p1ssed-up punters chucking sharp things across the room. Why don't they fcuk off and let people live their lives. At the very least tap rooms should be excluded. Time to bugger off to Greece and become a sponge-fisherman.

I'm a non-smoker but personally don't find anything irritating about being sat in a pub/club with a bunch of folk puffing away around me (I'd never turn up for meets otherwise! )... actually quite like passively having the equivalent of probably several fags in this way. I link the smell of a smoky bar with good nights out.

I don't enjoy it if I'm in a restaurant and trying to eat though, I have given daggers to people at a nearby table for that in the past. You can't smell or enjoy your food in the same way when you've got a little cloud around you.

Because of this, I'd have preferred they'd gone for a less far-reaching ban - still allowing people to smoke in places where no food (beyond pork scratchings or crisps) is served. In designated smoking areas... I don't think it's fair to say to non-smokers "If you don't want to breathe in carcinogenic chemicals, then you shouldn't come to this pub." You shouldn't have to choose between only having a small selection of places you can go for a night out and passively smoking other people's cigarrettes.

I think the rights of the smoker to smoke and the non-smoker to breathe clean air should be balanced. And with this law, I think they've gone too far in restricting the rights of people who do want to light up.

I hate having to stand in the bus station (where there are plastic square tunnel things we stand in to wait for the buses) and some twit is smoking. I always have to go stand outside the queue area, so I'm invariably the last on the bus. It's that or I get my asthmatic lungs filled with clouds of cancer.
Go figure.

Planet Dave wrote:Why don't they fcuk off and let people live their lives.

Not to play an overly offensive devil's advocate, but the same argument could be used against smokers prior to the ban.

As a smoker myself...

The point about smoking and food is valid IMO. I mean, even I don't want to breathe someone else's smoke while I'm eating.

However, one argument I saw a guy make on Question Time last night: is there not the chance that smokers who would have gone to the pub, now will stay at home to drink, and expose their kids to passive smoking, rather than exposing the other punters...

I'm going to get around it the same way that the hunt cnuts have got around the hunting ban: "What, this? No, I'm not smoking a cigarette. This is a combustion/inhalation nicotine replacement therapy device."

i hate it. hate hate hate.
thanks to it making me feel ill, and one of the reasons i don't go to our local any more, i'm glad. i grew up in a smokers' household. when i go home, my clothes have to be washed even if i haven't worn them. i can't sit with family if they're smoking, so i miss out. i just find the whole thing horrible.

nicely biased but from the heart.

I'm a smoker who smokes everywhere if allowed but it's no must! I understand the non smokers attitude and always try to make sure I'm not bothering any one with my smoke.

I can understand Dave's point of view though. Maybe glasses and bottles are dangerous as well in bars. Are they gonna be replaced by plastic stuff? Well....cheers.

On the other hand I know people who feel sick in a smoky environment. Emily seems to feel like this.

On way or another....it remains an issue....but smoking doesn't make you a criminal though that's the feeling I get sometimes here in Holland. Massive government/media campains and some people start to look different at you and make remarks just loud enough to hear it. It has been different not that long ago; I can tell you that.

Respect me smoking....I respect you not smoking....

boudicca wrote:I'm a non-smoker but personally don't find anything irritating about being sat in a pub/club with a bunch of folk puffing away around me.

You're short - smoke rises.

That only makes it easier for her to stab you in the stomach, Ed.

I can't lecture people who might be harming my health, before I figure out how much I'm harming my health.

Judging by various postings about the meager amount of blood in your alcohol stream, I'd hazard a guess that whatever you're doing is improving your ill health, as opposed to damaging your "health"

boudicca wrote:I'm a non-smoker but personally don't find anything irritating about being sat in a pub/club with a bunch of folk puffing away around me (I'd never turn up for meets otherwise! )

Right boys, we'll have to find something else, there must something that'll put her off coming to the meets












































ye ken I'm only kiddin'

Motz wrote:Judging by various postings about the meager amount of blood in your alcohol stream, I'd hazard a guess that whatever you're doing is improving your ill health, as opposed to damaging your "health"

Paradoxical logic which justifies my chemical intake?

Sold!

scotty wrote:

boudicca wrote:I'm a non-smoker but personally don't find anything irritating about being sat in a pub/club with a bunch of folk puffing away around me (I'd never turn up for meets otherwise! )

Right boys, we'll have to find something else, there must something that'll put her off coming to the meets [/size]

I do tend to get a bit queasy at the scent of garlic and wince when I see a crucifix...

Motz wrote:Judging by various postings about the meager amount of blood in your alcohol stream, I'd hazard a guess that whatever you're doing is improving your ill health, as opposed to damaging your "health"

it's a very nanny-state style assumption that everyone needs /wants their physical health to be put above their mental health. the stress caused by not smoking would finish some people off. either way it's their health. you look after yours and i'll worry about mine.
PLUS: although the obvious long-term risks of smoking are well-documented it is not a foregone conclusion that the cancer that sees you off will be smoking-related, or indeed that you won't smoke for seventy years and die peacefully in your sleep.(or give up tomorrow and get run over by a bus.)

the health issues/rights of non-smokers being taken as a given, when will the non-smokers start looking at the bigger picture and realise that this is another freedom being taken away without the mandate of the people?

they came for the smokers and i did nothing.... etc.

Anyone who hands over five and a half quid for a box of fags that has "These Will Kill You" written in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS on it knowing the risks is MAD IN THE FUCKIN'HEID, but it's their choice. Yes I know it's non - smokers right to breathe clean air....................so go for a walk in a park and keep out of Pubs.

The War On Drugs, the Dutch experiment with decriminalisation, and the USA's prohibition of Alcohol during the 20s and early 30s, have all proved that the only effect of banning drugs is to shift the supply (and subsequent profits) into the hands of criminal gangs, with little or no effect on the number of users.

The parallel may not be exact in that tobacco is still legal... for now.

it does affect indirectly.. taxes-> NHS. etc.

Yeah, if they banned cigs the government would go bankrupt