Change already?

"Oo, you can smell the food", says a lady walking into the pub where I just had lunch.

Odd, I'd been told that the pubs would be all boarded up, deserted and cobweb strewn by now...

Reply to
Arthur Figgis
Loading thread data ...

Only if you believe the head-in-the-sand doommongers - a few of whom inhabit this group.

Reply to
gavin

In article , Arthur Figgis writes

Apparently there are no pubs or bars left in Scotland, Ireland, and New York. Strangely, they don't seem to know they're meant to be shut, at least not the ones I have visited in Scotland. Perhaps it is just the tobacco pushers who are running scared.

Reply to
Prometheus

In my local town there have even been two new bars opened in fact one since the smoking ban here and one not long before.

Reply to
Cerumen

Aww come on guys. Be reasonable.

I'm not a smoker and I dislike smoking. But today I went into my local, and a group of people - good friends of mine - were reduced to huddling in the small porch of the pub as they smoked their cigarettes. Inside were a group of oh-so-smug people - the sort who'll make a half pint spin out for most of the afternoon. The regulars were treated as pariahs.

'Quite right', I hear the self-righteous saying and nodding in approval. 'They've only themselves to blame'

But surely this whole affair is too draconian. Yes, I agree that some 'foodie' pubs need to be smoke free, but other pubs, where the whole ethos is pints and tobacco should be tolerated too.

Why can't we have a system where pubs that permit smoking have a big red 'S' symbol at their door, signifying that, if you enter, you may encounter tobacco fumes?

I hate the term 'do-gooders' but sadly, it rings true in this instance. The 'do-gooders' have succeeded with respect to banning tobacco in public places, But. as we all know a 'do-gooder's work is never done. Their next target will undoubtedly be alcohol, and indeed, we've already seen recommendations that warning notices should be displayed in pubs and etched on beer glasses about the dangers of drink. Not much of a jump from there to prohibition.

So crow away, those of you rejoice in the smoking ban and yet drink beer, wine and spirits. Be smug while you can be. But be warned - you're next in the firing line.

Reply to
M Platting

In article , M Platting writes

I believe the original idea in NuLiebur's manifesto was to allow non food pubs and private clubs to decided if they wanted to become smoking or non smoking, a sensible idea which naturally got dumped.

I don't smoke but I do find this law a step too far, and I read in today's paper that some councils are banning smoking in their parks though this is not enforceable in law, YET!

Mike

Reply to
Mike Swift

It's nothing to do with being self-righteous. It's do with protecting people, staff and customers, from the very dangerous effects of passive smoking. Please try to understand that.

Reply to
gavin

Not a bit. For far too long smokers have been farting in everyone else's faces. About time this anti-social behaviour was recognised as such and so HOORAY.

As far as I'm concerned all smokers can die slowly and painfully.

Reply to
Peter Fox

Oh Gavin I do, I do!

But surely a notice outside a pub saying that , if you enter, you may be subjected to smoke, would suffice.

If people l voted with their feet and didnt go then the pub would close. Those who did go would do so in the full knowledge that someone within the bounds of the pub may well be smoking.

(and, to be as pedantic as you, yes, staff could be warned as well. OK spell it out big time! If you work here you may well die young!)

Is this unreasonable? Can't we be allowed the dignity of choice, or must we kowtow to big brother?

Reply to
M Platting

I take it you take the same attitude towards drink, which costs the health service, and therefore all of us, a great deal of money. Alcohol is such a curse. About time this anti-social behaviour was recognised as such and so, in anticipation of this happy event, HOORAY

That is sad, hurtful and uncalled for.

Reply to
M Platting

I think he has a point. I was in the 'The Angel' at Larling recently and there were a group of young lads at the bar contemptuously puffing their smoke into the air with total disregard for all others. Good riddance!

It required a strong act to enforce it.

Reply to
Saxman

No. the smokers were, if you want to put the worst interpretation on a simple request (law), asked to smoke outside where the harm done to others is a little less. I'd put a bell round the smokers neck personally.

My group in the pub today, about eight or nine of us, all had a gallon in perfect comfort. No smokers. Your crocodile tears don't matter a jot to me or my lot who have been smoked out for years. My clothes are clean - well not smokey, as is my skin.

Indeed they have.

Why? Why should I be smoked out?

If you don't know why, then really, you are beyond the pale.

So? Even if that is so, which I doubt, we can deal with that when it happens.

This is and always will be a fallacious argument. I'll explore it if need be, but my gallon makes it a little difficult.

This is a red letter day. Rejoice!

Peter

Reply to
Peter Alexander

I just hate this "Big Brother"?"Nanny state" argument that people hide behind. Smoking is a very dangerous activity and non-smokers need to be protected against it. It has nothing to do with Big Brother but everything to do with health.

Reply to
gavin

In article , gavin writes

Oh for Christ's sake do give it a rest, my parents smoked like chimneys throughout my childhood, my wife's father smoked 40 Capstan full Strength all his life, my dad's 89, my mum's 87, I'm 60 and going strong, my wife's father reached 80, she's 60 and still breathing, O.K. smoking is probably bad for you but this passive smoking seems a little tenuous.

Mike

Reply to
Mike Swift

In article , Peter Fox writes

Cyclists are a plague on the road system, they should be run over and killed where ever possible, don't you just love a tolerant person.

Mike

Reply to
Mike Swift

That was a large part of the problem of reducing numbers of pub-goers. There were increasing numbers of non-smokers and worse still for the complaints: ex-smokers. The overall group didn't want to go into smoky places and it only takes one smoker to make a place smoky.

The mix of smokers and non-smokers among my friends is probably representative of the mix from a normal pub-goer (i.e. more smokers than in a normal societal mix) but like many of my smoking friends I think the smoking lobby are responsible for the draconian action. They blocked all attempts at reasonable compromise and finally the anti-smoking lobby used a very big hammer on the increasingly small nut.

Reply to
Steven Pampling

My observations (West Yorks) are that it's a bit of an age thing. Younger smokers are more likely to change their habits than the older ones (and I mean 50-80+), who, having smoked all their lives, can often find it more difficult to come to terms with the ban.

Therefore, in a very short time period, we'll be wondering what all the fuss is about....

Reply to
M Platting

Funnily enough the late Richard Doll was able to calculate just how much probability there is of contracting lung cancer if you smoke. It's very probably bad for you.

Would you puff away next to a sleeping baby? And if not, why not?

E.

Reply to
eastender

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.