Scotland Bans Smoking In Public Places

Should Billy Mason do this, or should everyone just follow suit in starting new threads?

Doesn't bother me at all. Think it is a good idea. I wonder slightly how bosses of such places will make provision for their staff to be able to smoke though - it could make smoking bar-staff considered less useful or whatever.

(x-post to Rumpy Pumpkin) ?! surely that is a joke?!

I am for a ban because it would make a thorny problem in my professional life go away instantly.

It's fab to sit in a pub where the only bad odours now are Guinness farts and Calvin Klein muck.

I imagine it's more likely to be the randon smoker on his own that will be picked on.
This is bound to be an unpopular law.

not all clubs allow exit/re-entry do they - i would have thought it'll be more problematic there

If this did become law in the rest of the UK, it will lead to accusations of Blair's Nanny State that the Conservatives like to bring up all the time.

Will Blair bring this in?

I imagine that it'll be done as it is here: IE make it the problem of the venue, and put their license on the line.

I've never been to a scottish pub, but I'd be surprised if it was much worse than it was in Dublin before the ban.

Those who have claimed that pub and restaurant takings will go up as a result of a smoking ban should ask themselves why more landlords haven't banned smoking unilaterally.

I estimate around 80-90% of the people in my local boozer are smokers. The landlord has already said he's thinking of selling while the takings still look good because he expects it to go out of business.

From a personal point of view I'm happy that the ban will reduce my smoking intake as I normaly smoke around 10 times more when I'm out for a drink, but nipping out in the rain for a ciggy will be a pain in the arse. I'd be more than happy for smoking to be banned from anywhere where meals are served and children are allowed in, but the cost of banning it from (for want of a better phrase) drinking men's pubs outweighs the benefits.

I was disappointed with McConnell's blunt response to the complaints from publicans about lost takings (and therefore lost jobs), he basically said that Scotland has problems with alcohol too and if pubs made less money that was probably a good thing.

I look forward to him banning deep fried food from chip shops.

taxpayers pay for smokers decisions
Smokers pay a shitload more tax than anyone else in their income brackets and are net contributors to the NHS.

The only thing that annoyed me a bit about going out in New York was that the non-smokers ended up being coat/bag/table minders while the smokers went outside for fag breaks and this will probably happen in Scotland too.

Because they are afraid of people going to other pubs where smoking is still allowed. This problem disappears if it's banned across the board.

This is statistically impossible.

Do you think people will sop drinking if they can't smoke?

i don't mind being out with smokers really, but i'd marginally prefer not to have to inhale smoke. as an ex-smoker, it also removes a big temptation from drunken night sout.

And then turn 180% and start advertising how it's brilliant to go to pubs now, there's no smoke. "Still an atmosphere" was the phrase used (cf Guinness farts and Old Spice).

I was disappointed with McConnell's blunt response to the complaints from publicans about lost takings (and therefore lost jobs), he basically said that Scotland has problems with alcohol too and if pubs made less money that was probably a good thing.

I like this bluntness. It's quite brave.

Smokers pay a shitload more tax than anyone else in their income brackets and are net contributors to the NHS.
ah i have often wondered about that - how has it been calculated ?
(but i'm not sure that even if it is true it matters - no comfort for non-smokers suffering from a condition usually associated with smoking, and for their families, to consider that at least smokers are paying for the hospital treatment)

and thinking about the rise in superpubs/bingedrinking etc. i don't mind the idea of pubs being emptier
besides it'll make it easier to get a seat

Ah - interesting. You should market yourself as a Barry translator.

Don't know the details, but it was done, and it turned out the tax covered the NHS costs about ten times over.

This is true, if smoking was abolished completely, the treasury would be seriously out of pocket. If I'm cynical I think that's why they don't just ban smoking, instead of raising the tax every year "to put people off buying them". Everyone would have to pay more income tax I suppose.

You should try a smoking room - it's like... 100%

They could claw it back with a STEALTH TAX on pencils.

(i was wondering about how much guesswork was involved in the NHS costs calcs - but with a margin that high then any underestimating would have to have been to such a huge degree it would have been challenged i suppose...)

Smokers are more likely than non-smokers to drink. Drinkers are more likely than non-drinkers to smoke. People in shithole towns in the West of Scotland are hugely more likely to do both. Smokers smoke more whilst drinking. Take all that and stick it in a pub that has been a haven for working class drinking smoking men for decades and add some extra smoke in for good measure.
The barmaids don't have a problem with the smoke because they smoke as well. All of them. 100%.
They paint the walls with nicotine coloured paint so no-one notices when the smoke stains them.

80-90% may not be accurate but it's not far off the mark, and it certainly isn't "statistically impossible".

This is statistically impossible.

You've never been in some of the pubs in Glasgow then? xpost.

Make all the assumptions you want, but try reading THE ACTUAL LINES as well as between them.

No. Did you expect a different answer?
Do you think smoking in a pub where just about everyone smokes and not one of the customers ever complain is akin to mowing down children in the street?

Lots of dangerous things *are* allowed. People DRINKING in pubs puts a lot more people in hospital than smoking. Should we ban alcohol?

I suggested this on livejournal a while back and got a shitstorm of abuse from nonsmoking mates. They just didn't accept it as an idea at all but gave me no good reasons why.

The terms of the equation are such that the opinions of smokers and their sympathisers are automatically discredited, diseased, less healthy and robust, than those of others, and can be discounted on that basis.

And for moral high grounders there has to be a legislative solution, nothing less will do.

not you, ronan. you are different.

What's going to happen when everyone becomes addicted to spliff?

Since smoking on buses was banned, I've lived in London, Manchester and Sheffield, and I can't remember anyone smoking upstairs in any of them, except for the odd time where it's been a night bus and the driver has quickly stopped it.

Beer gardens is where it's at come 2006. I'm going to kill myself slowly in the open air.

the only plus I can think of is that beer prices have stopped soaring and the tight fisted alcofaced wankers who own my local have actually had to spend some of their money.

x-post, there are better ways to escape the status quo than banning drink. like drinking drink, for example.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but that day will come too, and I welcome it. In fact, I rather admired Bono for turning a recent Apple Expo into an anti-car and roads tirade. Now if they could just ban U2's music too...

He then places a little card on the dashboard for the benefit of the authorities. It reads "In the process of unloading - please give us 5 minutes".

shhhhh this is my ultimate masterplan....keep it down!

Licensed trade would never have stood for it. Also, the H+S motivation kind of goes out of the window if you allow exceptions.

How would you have a referendum? Who would vote? Just people in Edinburgh (who would likely vote against it) or the whole of Scotland? Would people in Glasgow vote yes just to annoy people in Edinburgh?

crosspost x2

yeah they did that ages ago.

you should have gone to the national road charging seminar tonight in leeds!

actually, so should i have done.

crosspost x3

I dunno, I think they are in favour of it, providing it's applied universally. It wouldn't have got this far if that wasn't the case.

crosspost

I have this weird image now of sportswear clad neds slurping buckie and complaining about the price of peridontal treatment these days.
"Ah've hud tae pawn two ay ma sovvies man!"

why did tommy sheridan resign?

re: sheridan: perhaps, it has something to do with PF deleting a photo (sheridan's) to make way, for his (PF's) breakfast. I think this was at lunchtime, too, and, quite a while ago, now. I have no idea, really.

george square?

a) It comes in in 2006, enough time to adapt
b) £100 fixed penalty for smoking (as is planned) will do the trick

If one person had lit up when I was in Dublin, it would have just been so weird.

I don't know why buses are different, but they somehow are.

The SSP is around £200k in the red and with no obvious media friendly choices as new leader the future looks grim for them. That said, I still think their vote share will increase as they pick up disillusioned labourites.

I wonder who will enforce this.

I don't think there will be many enforcement problems after a half dozen or so people get fined a stack of cash for smoking.

But that's not where it happens. They can't stand against the might of the voting public etc, but they can scare the shite out of the licensed premises, and that'll do just dandy.

-- Onimo (gerry.wat...), November 10th, 2004 5:09 PM.

Aaaarghh, I knew I should have just given up and not lurked!

Ahhh the old 'other things are more dangerous/annoying' argument.....Other things you as an individual choose to do do not directly and immediately effect my health.

I could care less if your liver explodes, picking up a pint does not hurt me, lighting up a fag does. This is the difference, and there's no arguing with it (Although I'm sure you'll find a way but I'm not listening, nah nah).

Continue not listening.

*sticks fingers back in ears*

indifferent to the ban tho - can see pros and cons

agree with carsmile also about the undeniable sociable aid the cigarette continues to be

"Allowing smoking if they wish" and "banning smoking if they wish". Amounts to the same thing in the end - boring gastro-pubs for ghastly middle class professionals and their ill-mannered brats and friendly, warm-hearted deathtraps for the rest of us

I'm sure it's some consolation as you get your face put back together to know that the idiot responsible least waited until closing time to put a glass in it.

Onimo - Drunk people do not always smack you in the face - cigarette smoke always impacts on non-smokers health.

And why wouldn't they do it?

Ask any policeman or casualty worker how common alcohol related violence is then tell me it's not a serious health and safety issue.

And you are attempting to divert attention away from my very valid points.

Again - not all drunk people hurt others. The comparison is inappropriate, I fail to see yor point.

I actually go to pubs, quite a lot. I don't like having to breath in smoke, I don't like the stink next day, I don't like that it makes me feel ill. I think you'll find most non-smokers don't like it either, it's just they don't want to be labelled as boring killjoys. I don't care though ;0)

All smokers in pubs harm others?

By smoking, you are directly harming me.

xpost

the 'harm' is negligible unless you spend every night in smoky pubs (Roy Castle style). you might as well ban microwave ovens if harm is the main incentive/reason.

If something you are doing is having a pronounced and immediate effect on my health and quality of life, why should I be forced to endure it?

i could prove it by science if i had the time and inclination

How does driving a car have a pronounced an immediate effect on my health? It may if it hits me but again, that's not 100% certainty. A car driving past me does not make me cough and splutter, or make my eyes and throat itch.

a) It comes in in 2006, enough time to adapt
b) £100 fixed penalty for smoking (as is planned) will do the trick

Hrm I can think of at least 4 non-smoking bars in NYC that I've been to more than once since the institution of the smoking ban here that allowed smoking inside them (one of them not even surreptitious "we'll look the other way" type of behavior--they gave us ashtrays). And at the last gig I went to in NYC, half the crowd was smoking away (again, a non-smoking building--there are very few licenced smoking bars in the city, they have to be cigar bars or hookah bars to begin with, before the ban).

Of course perhaps people outside NY are more law-abiding, which would make sense.

xpost smee in fairness people with allergies to cigarette smoke, which you are describing, are also a minority of the population. For the average person residing in an urban area who is not allergic to cigarette smoke, Dadaismus is right, automobile pollution (amongst others) would result in a much more consistent problem.

Maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive, but still - why the f*ck should I suffer coz smokers wanna kill themselves?

The fact remains that smoking is harmfull to your health and it harms the health of others. This is now an accepted fact.

xpost

It might bother you but it wont kill you, or harm you. I refer you to the statement above.

either this stuff is dangerous or it isn't - if it isn't, why not have smoking allowed everywhere at all times ?
why weren't there massive campaigns against banning it in cinemas ? nurseries ? why isn't it allowed in some areas of hospitals ?

why should ppl wanting to drink in pubs mean that they should have to put up with cig-smoke atmospheres? it's as if ppl who went to sports centres to play injury-risky games were somehow expected to put up with slippery floors or equipment that might fuckup and hurt them -'what do you mean? you obviously are already willing to take a risk in pursuit of enjoyment!'

if the response is - 'they don't HAVE to put up with it, they could go somewhere else, or not come out' - then we have the practicalities of lack of alternative (i.e almost all pubs will not ban smoking) and a willingness to apply restraints to others that are being complained about in the first place - ie no, why don't YOU stay at home instead?

(if a non-smoker stick was invented that, when ignited and held, somehow removed/neutralised cig-smoke for non-smokers but could make smokers feel a bit sick, and irritate their eyes etc, and increase THEIR risk of developing smoking-related diseases, how would the 'oh well why don't you go somewhere else or stay at home' argument play out then ? it's not as if non-smokers are doing it 'intentionally' to hurt smokers, or as if smokers haven't already decided to risk their health anyway...)

ultimately i'm puzzled why some ppl - not all, i know smokers who do try to keep it to themselves - but some, just don't have the fundamental decency of manners to keep their smoke to themselves, especially when they can already choose to do so
is it really such hard work to have some consideration ? are they like phone-bellowers and walkman-buzzers and ppl who don't give their seats up to the infirm on public transport ?

you can bet that if asked why, some would reply - 'oh, what, is there a LAW against it or something?'

well haha thanks to that attitude there soon fucking will be...

I don't think I'm taking any high moral ground, because like smee, I am not really that bothered about the effects on the health of people who choose to smoke. I won't even complain about that portion of my taxes which will go towards NHS treatment of smoking-related diseases.

So, do people who disagree with the ban also disagree with my interpretation of the social contract, or are they just not big fans of all the social contract in general?

(reading back what I've written, it seems kind of arsey. It isn't supposed to be arsey).

If somebody sits down next to me and drinks a pint it has no direct impact on me or my health, not so with a cigarette.

Why is that so difficulty to grasp?

Tobacco tax more than pays for NHS treatment for tobacco related illnesses.

If the government REALLY wanted to make us all healthier they would ban tobacco completely. It would be interesting then to see the reactions of non-smokers when they looked at their pay slips and saw how much it was costing them to make up the resultant deficit in Gordon Brown's coffers.

x-post Kevin otm. there should be a provision for people to be allowed smoke in a pub, where all people in said pub wish to be there and are aware of the risks, to themselves and each other.

similarly the reverse should be true.

even if it's not feasible to create a fair situation this denial that a total ban is not a fair or liberal law is total rubbish.

Onimo - that's just ludicrous, lets all keep killing ourselves and those around us, coz if we don't we'll be out of pocket!

xpost

I am not advocating banning alcohol. I raised the issue to point out that banning one substance and claiming it as a health and safety issue opens up a can of worms. Why can't I choose to drink in a bar that plays loud music then ask them to turn it down because it makes my ears ring? Why can I walk to work without inhaling killer fumes from the thousands of cars queued up around Glasgow?

heh.

xpost

But even so, the ban states that a bar owned by a smoker, with smokers working there, entirely patronised by smokers, must be stopped smoking by the state - and this is a violation of social contract.

Well, if it were a private house I'd be fine with everyone smoking. But I don't see where these bars are in which every single person who walks in smokes. If its a public place, then there are bound to be at least some non-smokers, who would have their rights violated if everyone smoked all over them.

I don't agree that the social contract applies only to direct, malicious harm. Harm is still harm, and people should be protected from being harmed by the actions of others as far as possible.

It's not about 'it hasn't bothered me', it's about government banning a behaviour, and I think that needs to be criticised and examined. This act affects situations where none of the anti-smoking arguments apply.

imposing cigarette smoke on other people - ban it.

And I'm talking about direct and immediate, at that exact momentt as he/she drinks the pint - who is he/she harming?

But more likely I would just comply, but feel like I'd lost another simple comfort forever.

But really, there should be some pubs left where you can smoke. Not that you'd want to go there all the time, but just now and then, so you could sink back in yr chair with a fag and a beer in your hands and sigh and slump and slurp.

I think they'll be banning slumping from pubs next, joyless fuckers.

I believe that individual freedoms are only rights when they don't directly infringe on other people in a negative way.

Cathy totally OTM. Don't smokers realise how selfish they're being for this reason alone?

ok I haven't bought a packet of cigarettes, in ages!

anyway the "it hasn't bothered me" thing did seem sort of irrelevent in my post there but what I am getting at, I guess, is that I think whether one smokes or not is not the crux of this issue, which is annoying because most people blindly base their decision on this fact.

I think it should be considered like any other law, and the fairest solution applied. The fairest solution, is NOT, and in no way can be, an outright ban on smoking in pubs.

As I said it shouldn't be an "opt out" or "opt in" situation, they should encourage pubs to opt in, make it attractive. I'm sure they earn enough money from booze and cigarettes to at least do that.

x-post, haha yeah SMOKERS are the ones being selfish when non smokers won't actually agree that "hey some pubs should be smoking ones". "NO, THEY ALL SHOULD BE BANNED"

Markelby - because when you make this point pro-smokers site things like, perfume, loud noise and farts as things that should also be banned.

I was merely pointing out that the non-smoker line of "paying taxes to fix your lungs" is a red herring. At £5 a pack I'm paying for the future repair of my lungs in advance.

Onimo - yes the same thing does apply to alcohol - this is one of those 'ideally we wouldn't start from here' scenarios
but although we are where we are, that doesn't mean where we are is a nice place to be, or that we have to stay there
pointing at some other problem as if it means we have to keep this one doesn't seem useful
besides if you are in favour of cutting down drink probs then maybe the possible reduction in socially-fuelled attendance & public drinking that the trade are worried about would be a good thing?
(not that i believe it would last)

xpost

But non smokers are not paying £5 a pack, if they get ill from someone elses smoke - who will pay for their treatment?

(no analogies or deflections please)

Smee, I don't much fancy someone farting near me either, but you can't exactly legislate against it. And, as I said above, all I want is an answer to the question.

x-post Mark it's not obliging anyone if there are enough of both smoking and non-smoking pubs. I think the law should be based on giving people choices.

(that is going to end up on the 'ilx quoted out of context thread')

And I'm talking about direct and immediate, at that exact momentt as he/she drinks the pint - who is he/she harming?

No problem, just as soon as you explain to me WHAT FUCKING DIFFERENCE IT MAKES if he goes straight home and punches fuck out of his wife or waits until he's had another 6 pints.

Smokers. I said "more than pays for" remember? We pay a surplus. Get some anti-itching medicine from the NHS by all means, it's on me.

If he smoked a cigarette next to me before going home to punch his Mrs however, he's harming both me and her.

I don't smoke fags, but I do smoke dope - habitually. Like smoking cigarettes it takes willpower to come off the crap.

I've never been allowed to smoke it in the boozer though (not that I've tried to) so when I'm out in pubs etc I'm smoking less of it.

That's a good thing - I'm saving myself from myself. If dope smoking was legal in pubs then I'd be smoking more of the shit. As it stands, by going out I'm keeping the imminent brain decline that little bit further away.

this is a very fast thread. i really must do some work today

Would that be harmful to you personally?

Ronan, in theory yes, but in practice social groups are mixed, introducing the obligation. So how on earth's it going to work?

How feasible would installing extractor fans in pubs be?

Jusdging by the attitude of some of the non-smokers on this thread, I am surprised that they *are* friends with smokers.

x-post Steve otm.

But that gives them a choice of a fag or me - seems a real shame to never see friends who smoke because smoking is more important to them than I am (and if that IS how they feel then I can't argue with that).

(Onimo, when are you going to accept that smoking makes other people's lives that little bit worse? No-one else is whining on about being glassed or punched, there's no comparison to be made, even if Sme is bravely trying to work with your warped logic)

!!!

clearly they could reverse this very simply, and say "because the minute risk of passive smoke for one evening out of every few weeks is more important to mark than we are"

I agree that the effects of alcohol consumption have a devastating effect on society, but drinking and smoking are just not comparable in the way you seem to be making out.

(I'm against the smacking ban. Maybe we should have that debate too, if we haven't already)

Yes, I am choosing that, because the thought of being in a pub designed for smokers makes my throat seize up. I seriously honestly couldn't go into a pub like that without getting an asthma attack, and even if this wasn't an issue, the unpleasantness would be vast and overwhelming. All they have to do is not smoke for a few hours or, as will end up happening, go outside every half an hour for a swift puff.

As for "PASSIVE SMOKING KILLS" - (using your owncriteria) Immediately and directly? People are dropping like flies in smoky pubs? BAN IT NOW.

Myspace barhas stopped working and Ihave tothump it toget spaces in. This is almost asannoying asthis thread.

I am weary from battle, but I completed my mission.

My mum - who would dearly love to stop smoking, after all she nursed her own mother through lung cancer, has cut down by three a day (doesn't sound much but she's getting there) only because her work abolished smoking on the premises. Now my mum, what's she going to do? Quit her work? Drive onto the main road on her lunch break and smoke in a lay by? No, she embraced this after her initially rant, she seen in it an extra helping hand in giving up her habit.

Steve.n, I know it bothers me more than most, but I'm not talking about a regular night out right now, with current smoking laws. I often have problems with smoky atmospheres in normal pubs, but I go anyway because I accept they're my problems. It doesn't mean I don't have a strong preference for non-smoking environments, though.

Are you not worried that all your cool friends will be having a more exciting time than you when they're standing outside having a fag?

/sarcasm

I also think one of the problems that he has is that statements like "I don't live with him and that's not my problem" expose the NIMBYism behind an alleged greater social responsibility and talk of a "social contract".

(an xpost from several up)

'the UK, which has the highest number of asthma sufferers in Europe. 15% of the UK population suffer from the condition '

Bloody hell, went to get some Asthma statistics and came back to about 50 posts!

Take us back several centuries and it was common sense that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, etc etc.

*puts down stirring spoon*

(many x-posts)

That's all.

no the point, clearly, is that people's risk of dangerous circumstances is usually lessened by laws and regulations.

x-post: I actually suffer from asthma, smoking doesn't seem to affect it much (obviously YMMV).

Because smokers are HARD.

People still have the choice, to commit crime, if they want to. As unsavoury as that might seem a society where that wasn't the case would require constant surveillance and imprisonment, mind reading etc etc.

We all put up with things we don't like, it's part of being a society.

a) bother you a lot
b) not a big thing, but it's be nicer if there was no smoke
c) never bother you

I doubt c) would have the highest tally. I think b) would, for what it's worth, but that's still the smoker's actions infringing negatively on other people, going by Cathy's eminently sensible definition.

the law, in the abstract, doesn't I suppose but if people could get away with it, rather more would i think. maybe i'm misunderstanding your point, though.

it's lessened the most by their choice of job

we should note as a side point that the sort of people who do shift work in bars across the country probably can't pick and choose between jobs.

But we strive to make society better.

x-post they could choose between bar jobs if there were both smoking and non smoking pubs, and I think that's an overstatement anyway, there are other jobs, it's not a question of picking and choosing but surely most bar staff don't even stay in the same bar for years anyway do they?

Actually, that's not true, inconsiderate smokers did bother me, though most were considerate.

Agreed! The other part is giving up things we might want to do that harm others.

(steve.n, it's hard to have a fine line between considerate and inconsiderate - a draught may mean even the most considerate smoking effects you, but I get your point)

I don't think that many people aspire to be bar workers, especially those who dislike smoke, but for those that do, the smoking ban is their chance of a lifetime.

That fact would slightly offset my sadness.

How about we set aside Tuesdays as smoking days?

Onimo OTM.

I think that loud clubs should not happen.

In short, this is an entirely blunt stick being used to enforce a strategy perhaps not without merit in big handfuls, but with no consideration as to how much of a minority it may be protecting. I've certainly been in pubs where the 80-90% smokers proportion is entirely accurate, perhaps an understatement. The people in this thread who are in favour of the ban have said they wouldn't go into places like this - so who is actually being protected here?

A liberal society is perhaps one in which people like me cannot stop other people's fun just because they don't like it. I think that such liberalism must have much to recommend it.

It is nice, though, to be drafted, I mean, pressed, I mean, ganged, into THE SOUND POLICE.

For noise, allow only the bass frequencies to be loud. And you can use a little receiver & headphones to boost the treble to whhatever volume you like.

Ya see, any problem can be solved with .. Technology!

They may be the minority nationwide, but in the example I'm giving where the vast majority of the pub are smokers who is this ban trying to protect? Also, from a commercial perspective is the influx of non-smokers to these pubs going to completely offset the smokers who may stop?

Smee - and this is why I welcome the ban. Because it will prove, once and for all, that the people who don't go to the pub because it is smokey will find another excuse, as they are just plain anti-social.

The majority/minority stuff is bollocks. The majority of people in this country read Richard Littlejohn and don't get angry. The majority of people in this country support capital punishment and would be happy to close the borders to asylum seekers. "Majority" does not equal "right".

xpost again :-/

The biggest problem with the ban obviously is what N. referred to elsewhere: that now we will know what the interiors of these pubs actually look and smell like, which can't be in anyone's interest.

xpost with ___

Also, I fear that many non-smokers exagerate their dislike of smoke when involved in a conversation like this. I know that I have had this conversation with non-smokers who get very self-righteous this subject, whilst I know from experience they can sit in a pub happily for hours on end with no visible sign of discomfort. Obviously they'd be happier if there were no smoke, but they exagerate.

Yes there is, they're called non-smoking pubs. On an optional basis.

Also, I understood that the latest thinking was that although passive smoking did indeed raise the risk of smoking-related afflictions (asthma irritation, lung cancer) it was way behind traffic fumes in terms of effect.

You've just crossed the line from aggressively wrong to fucking stupid. We're talking about people's health and a fundamental consideration for others. There is NO comparison here, again.

And I think it's probably the other way round! On this thread there's only really me and Smee arguing vociferously and we both vote b) on that little scale I did earlier. It's not about the level with which you dislike smoking; it's about the recognition that it has negative effects on a lot of people and anyone who's been brought up well will at least be aware of this. Some people are ignoring this fact because winning semantic battles (in their own heads) is more important.

Ronan, wtf? I'm saying it's a FACT that it's bad for you; it's a FACT that a lot of people find it annoying!! How many more ways can you find to misread/ignore what I'm saying???

Do you think lying should be illegal Mark?

"Fundamental consideration for others" - where's the fundamental consideration for smokers who want to socialise with other smokers in a smoky pub/club with no non-smokers in it?

I see no stupidity in putting forward a case for the majority not always being right.

Do you think there should be pubs where smokers can go? I can't find your opinions on this (though it is a long thread, so I might've missed).

??

I think if there was a proportion of non smoking pubs reflecting the amount of non smokers, the above situation wouldn't be the case.

We're talking about smoking here, not being aggressive, not our little spat. Back to the subject with you.

And Steve - the non-smokers are in the minorty because of they're avioding the smoke!

being inconsiderate to other people = capitalism

xpost again obv.

Clubs should be loud, the louder the better

I want to go to a pub where all my friends are, smoky? I don't mind.

also, my chest has been knackered since giving up, wtf?

I cough a bit less in the morning, that's all I notice. Mind you I was only smoking in the pub or when boozing so would go days without

THIS IS CLEARLY NOT ILX's CHRIS speaking

Sorry, chris, it looks like i've been getting at you today (what with the paste thing) - i'm not, but you being against fun hating is ALSO a rum thing to see :-)

i'm not keen on ppl with legitimate health concerns being described as puritans. we frown on people who let their dog's foul the pavement/grass. is that puritanism?

What I would settle for would be a small number of smoking pubs, perhaps selling slightly higher taxed beer. Somewhere you'd not be able/want to go to often, but when you did it'd be something special. And non-smokers would be kept the fuck out.

I suspect this wouldn't make most smokers happy, but I suspect that non-smokers would be even more heavily against the idea.

Non-smokers?

x-post to mark too. I don't doubt, as a smoker, that smoking is bad for the health.

popular support + factual grounds to legislate = a winner

A couple of people in our pub crowd smoke and it doesn't bother me. In fact, as someone who was "brought up well" (I think) I actually find forcing them to go outside, or excluding them altogether, for performing a legal activity which may marginally increase my risk of an illness, to be far less considerate and possibly downright rude.

And to be fair to Onimo, Markelby, you've been pretty aggressive towards him for what appears to be no reason. And it was you that mentioned being aggressive first. Is it not fair that he at least answers that?

And Steve - the non-smokers are in the minorty because of they're avioding the smoke!
I'd like to see some evidence to support this sort of generalisation, which is supposed to rebuff a pretty specific empirical example.

I mean, perhaps Britain and Ireland are vastly, vastly different from the US, but a government who actively procures loopholes to avoid actually dealing with environmental issues and allow businesses to make vastly more money while destroying the air and the environment (THESE ARE LARGELY BELIEVED BY SANE RATIONAL SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS TO BE MORE HARMFUL THAN SECOND-HAND SMOKE, DO YOU REALIZE??? AS THE FLAMING LIPS WOULD SAY) and then suddenly starts enacting smoking bans worrying about the health of poor barstaff (who, in the US at least, have generally come out vastly AGAINST such bans) doesn't really seem like a government trying to protect anyone besides their own asses which spent the past century or so sucking the cock of the tobacco industry.

In NYC, the smoking ban was just one more step in the Republican Disneyfication of NYC. In one way or another, anything representative of the nightlife has been annihilated little by little here to make way for wealthy businessmen who used to move their families to posho suburbs and tourists from Idaho and really, that is what worries me more about these bans than the fact that I can't fucking smoke in a bar. I mean I managed to go to school or, previously, work all day without a fag constantly dangling out of my mouth. If the government was also making strides in policing pollution and other serious environmental hazards then I'd be all for the idea that the smoking ban is there out of a genuine issue of health.

As it is, it's not, they don't give a rat's ass, it's put a couple of small pubs and bars out of business in NYC though I cannot vouch for anywhere else, and funnily we still have one of the highest child asthma rates in the country here because we can't be bothered to do a damn thing about people who feel the need to drive Hummers on Park Ave.

I understand that there are a few very vocal non-smokers on this thread who are really horrified by the idea that someone might, ever, smoke, and I respect that opinion, but I think it'd be worth your time to look into some of the other issues that have cropped up around the bans in US cities and do some thinking about it. Again, I'm running under the assumption that, based on my experience of the UK, this area of the world is not a shining happy example of fantastic environmentalism and wonderful, healthy society otherwise (or at the very least an example of a government who gives a shit about creating such).

I'm not saying "be against the smoking ban because of this really obnoxious insistance that US cities have recently had on legislating the most minor aspects of morality the past ten years", but I am just saying that you might want to be concerned with WHY having smoking-pub licences is such a bad idea to the government, or what other options might be available besides an all-out blanket ban, because these people do not have your best interests in mind, and while you might reap a benefit this time from a universal ban, they'll go after something you LIKE next, judging by the patterns set here.

I also would put forth that I don't understand why the smoking bans have not been issues up for public election anywhere they've been enacted (that I know of--please correct me if I'm wrong). Again, using the US example, why are we allowing the citizenship to vote on issues like gay marriage and immigration rights but simple things like shutting down pubs earlier, rezoning Times Square to remove any sign of strip clubs or porn shops, or smoking in a bar are purely up to the government officials? I am certain that put up to a public vote, a smoking ban would pass, especially since the group such a ban would most affect/irritate are young smokers, who are already part of a demographic that by and large can't be bothered to vote! So why don't they just put them up for election, so that the debate is useless, "Well this is what the people all said they wanted so this is how it is."

and i do sort of think of this issue a bit like fox hunting. really there are more important things to be done.

Yeah I think that there are more important things to be done than to mostly protect people who have said they don't want the protection (again, at least this is the case here--the unions came out very strongly against the smoking ban in NYC (so did, ironically, Giuliani)). So yeah, that's a bit OTM.

Ah, the truth will out. You think he's potentially a Bush supporter - that is, the sort of person you said in other threads you'd like to kick in the face (a position you stuck to resolutely). No wonder you think he's "mean-spirited and nasty".

OK, how do either of those positions invalidate smoking and non-smoking pubs as a concept? Or make it less of a health issue than traffic pollution?

It's uncanny, a fucking joke at this point!

I agree that it is hypocritical to introduce the smoking ban and do practically nothing to cut traffic pollution. I personally would be in favour of environmental laws and taxes which would be far, far more unpopular than this smoking ban, but I will still happily welcome the ban as a small victory in a wider war.

But banning it is easy, it's a slam-dunk. If you're a mayor, how do you lose? You clear bars and restaurants of something that a voting majority doesn't participate in and probably doesn't particularly like. And because divorcing public drinking from public smoking reaches down into physical traditions that are literally hardwired into people's bodies, and into the life of certain parts of the city, it makes you appear something of a visionary. Easy points.

(For the record, I'm a fairly self-concious smoker to the point of not lighting up in the smoking section of restaurants if I notice some moron has decided to not wait for a non-smoking table and brought their 17 five year olds into the smoking section instead, thoughtlessly endangering themselves and their kids so they can chow tacos 15 minutes faster than they would've had they waited, even though they have quite frankly decided to put themselves in this situation rather blatantly. I've actually admonished Tom to not light up in several situations like this. No one on this board--including Mark!--has asked me to not smoke around them, but if they did, I would. I suppose this is my little way of saying that smokers can be both considerate and inconsiderate, as can nonsmokers, judging by the amount of morons I've run across who apparently can't wait for a non-smoking table but then get quite irritable by the smokers in the SMOKING SECTION. This is because we are all, shockingly, humans, who come in both rude and non-rude varieties)

(Except for me, I am a robot)

No-one could seriously argue that non-smoking majoritarians were being forced - against their will! - into nasty, smelly - sorry - STINKY, has to be "stinky" - smoke-filled branches of Starbucks, Bean Scene, etc.

Nevertheless that wasn't good enough (obviously) and as of 2006 that wee pleasure (maybe not so wee a pleasure) is out of the question too.

They did this cleverly in Scotland. In most pubs they had a survey of what peoples opinions were. In the typical way these things work out, those that felt oppressed and agrieved (the anti-smoking non-smokers) took the time to fill the thing out. Noone else seemed to bother. Hence they have "supporting evidence".

scornful tactics and subject changing
This from a guy who entered the thread with the completely _on-topic_ statement that it was "statistically impossible" for 8 out of 10 people to smoke. Maybe if you'd been counting Kerry's votes he'd have won.

you might reap a benefit this time from a universal ban, they'll go after something you LIKE next, judging by the patterns set here.
Allyzay OTM and putting it better than I could with my attempted parallels with alcohol, music, cars, etc.

Onimo, it's your "parallels" which are the problem - you're not talking about the subject, you're talking about loads of other crap that's irrelevant. Your aggression is in the way you speak, the way every sentence comes with a sneer, the way you mock and pour scorn on the people you disagree with. I spent 3/4 of this thread trying to argue without having a go at anyone.

"I visit Ireland regularly and since the introduction of the smoking ban I have come to one conclusion: People smell bad, really bad. Many a pub and club stinks of odours produced naturally and tears can fill the eyes. Folk don't realise that the one benefit fag smoke has is to mask the smell of people."

BAN FARTS!

My short responses thereafter to you and Madchen making veiled accusations to who-knows-what because I have the audacity to refer to the town I live in and know like the back of my hand as a shithole, which it is, were entirely justified. Make an accusation or don't, but don't ask me to deny something without saying what it is.

You are being scornful, sneering, sarcastic, aggressive and just plain rude to me (everything you accuse me of, in fact). It's fairly obvious you are doing this for personal reasons. I did email you, as you suggested, in an attempt to resolve this apparent personal problem you have with me but when you get round to reading it please ignore anything remotely conciliatory therein.
xpost

one for the 'intriguing/amazing statistics' thread?

So, you still want me to ignore your email or shall we be grown up about it?

If the tone of my messages comes across as "snide" then it is not intentional. No-one else seems to have this problem with me, or if they have they haven't said so.

Raad the email and make your own mind up where it goes from there.

If you'd actually abandon this strategy you wouldn't get in anything like the amount of arguments you do, however that's not going to happen anytime soon. All you ever apologise for is the subsequent hissy fit when somebody inevitably loses the rag at being called "inconsiderate, nasty, not nice" or whatever other wet moralistic putdown you throw out, in an argument which is nothing to do with the same.

To make myself clear - whether I am right or good isn't the point. I've been arguing about the rights or wrongs of banning smoking in pubs, not how wonderful and superior I am. Why can't you get this?

I don't see why wanting people to be nice to one another is an unworthy desire. If that's wet, then I don't want to be dry. (um)

I don't think "why can't you get this?"/"is this so diffucult to grasp?" help anyone.

If you want to argue about something, as I said, already, in the post I just made, I suggest you abandon this puritanical self righteous tone of yours, because as you can see, it just makes arguments even worse and more heated.

As regards a smoking ban in public places I'm largely pro, for entirely selfish reasons. I am an (albeit extremely occasional) smoker, am entirely aware of the health risks, and work in a restaurant which permits smoking. I am in the presence of a large amount of passive smoke all day long. I would prefer to work in a smoke-free environment but the pros of working here far outweigh the cons, hence smoking ban: great. Most of my smoking customers have already said they wouldn't object to our being non-smoking also, which is odd, but understandable, I think.

Many many x-posts, I expect.

(RJG, find this hilarious)

Neither of which are the hallmarks of someone "well brought up", are they? They look more like the characteristics of someone "mean-spirited and nasty". Unless of course you don't mean either of them, in which case you'll understand fully what Onimo means upthread when he says "If the tone of my messages comes across as "snide" then it is not intentional. No-one else seems to have this problem with me, or if they have they haven't said so." Providing of course people haven't said so about you before.

That doesn't make Mark any better brought up necessarily but seriously, chill.

Come visit the Scottish Football Predictions thread. It is 100% fair, your idiocy will be objectively measured in points and it rarely smells bad or itches your eyes. All ill-feeling and snideness is restricted to those with hangovers, though don't expct any sympathy if you're the poor bastard to has to tally up the idiot points. Don't tell that bastard McConnell you're coming, he'll fucking ban it.

Can you tell I'm pished?

nobody is forcing anybody to smoke.
nobody is forcing anybody to stop smoking. just do it outside, and not in enclosed areas.

if a non-smoker feels that they should have to go somewhere else (or would just prefer not to have to put up with it) because of smoking, why should it not be the people that choose to smoke that should be inconvenienced?

the ban in ireland has had no significant effect on pub business, taking into account seasonal variations and the ridiculous cost of alcohol here anyway- smokers adapted to it immediately, and the environment in pubs and clubs is much more pleasant.

and the propposals for some smoking, some non-smoking pubs is confusing- why would a pub choose to limit itself in this way, given the option? outdoor areas covered with canopies and heated appear to be working just fine here.

if a non-smoker feels that they should have to go somewhere else (or would just prefer not to have to put up with it) because of smoking, why should it not be the people that choose to smoke that should be inconvenienced?

Because having the smokers be inconvenienced (and I believe they make up a larger number than people who choose not to go to a pub because of smoke, but that's irrelevant for this point) requires making people's behaviour illegal. Something I did tonight will be made illegal - I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. As for the 'canopy' option, aside from weather concerns, why won't the anti-smoking arguments apply just as well there?

i can see the logic behind the smoking/non-smoking pubs as a theoretical argument (although it just doesn't work), but why bother? them's only smokers, after all.

if making smoking illegal is what it takes for me to enjoy a pint, i'm all for it. i don't claim to have the moral superiority here, but from my point of view, i got no bones with it, and am chuffed that the legislation is here.

hey, is it valid to say that smokers have a choice of smoking pub countries and non-smoking pub countries? ;)

sure yeah they lowered the price of pints out of altruism.

where did they lower the price of a pint anyway? news to me.

Sorry, I was dealing with a hysterical, pregnant ex-wife (I thought that was what new boyfriends were supposed to be for?) all yesterday evening, it put me on edge a bit. So apologies if I jumped to the wrong conclusion anywhere. Dealing with manipulative people does that to you (the ex-wife, that is, not aimed at anybody here).

Who is your president?

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/inequalities_files/image002.gif

Analysis using a summary index of socio-economic deprivation sharpens the gradient still further. Factors taken into account in constructing the index include: occupation; educational level; housing tenure; car ownership; unemployment; and living in crowded accommodation.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/inequalities_files/image004.gif

I mean, no-one doubts a link between poverty and smoking - I would expect the same sort of trends in the US, even when mapped by race. It also might be worth considering that people with lifestyles conducive to smoking are also more likely to visit pubs.

wtf????

Clearly law extends beyond those minimums, as indeed it should. But what is immoral should not necessarily be illegal.

I think what's happened is that I was thinking of morality in a much broader definition than just what people think of as the big moral issues like abortion, homosexuality etc. I'm not sure how 'morality' in this context is different from 'ethics' though.

-- aimurchie (kpcollin...)

a nice lady called mary mcaleese. even though we didn't have an election, mind you.

morality shouldn't be legislated, but behaviour causing harm too others should, i would say, whether immoral or otherwise.

This made me laugh.