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...)

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.