?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Smoking Ban In All Pubs And Clubs (BBC News Online; Tuesday 14th February 2006)

Looks like England is not a place to be a smoker from the summer of 2007. They are also consdering putting up the minimum age allowed to buy cigarettes from 16 to 18 - not that that will actually do anything to stop kids getting hold of cigarettes!

I personally think a total smoking ban is a bad idea whilst tobacco is legal. If you really want to tackle the issue just ban tobacco altogether - oh, of course you can't can you because the tax it brings in for government is just too good.....

I believe that a partial ban should have been brought in. I believe that clubs and pubs should have needed to apply for a 'smokers' license that would allow them to have people smoking on their premises. That way people would have a clear choice and would be able to make up there own minds about the issue. The smokers would still be able to go out and socailise whilst having their nicotine fix and the non-smokers could decide to go to a smoke-free pub/club and not come home smelly like a sweaty used ashtray.

Private Clubs should have been exempt altogether.

In my own smokers news I have managed to cut back considerably. I haven't had a cigarette at work, or at home, for a few weeks now and am only smoking (a few) when I am out at a gig, bar or club. I'm glad I've managed to cut back (I say 'cut-back' at most I was on about 2-4 on non-club/gig days!) as I used to only be a very occasional smoker and over the last year or two it had crept up to an almost daily routine. I don't plan to give up altogether but if I go down to a handful a week or month then I'll certainly be a lot happier.

I still don't agree with a total ban though.

Comments

( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
ua_meruti
Feb. 14th, 2006 08:20 pm (UTC)
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
Hate to say it folks, but after 30 years of stinking like an ashtray through no fault of my own, I'm less than sympathetic.
angusabranson
Feb. 14th, 2006 09:44 pm (UTC)
I agree they should have given people the option sooner. But I do strongly feel there should be that option available.
zenmeisterin
Feb. 14th, 2006 11:37 pm (UTC)
Hear hear!
ua_meruti
Feb. 15th, 2006 05:47 pm (UTC)
Heh, at least someone still loves me :)
gypseymission
Feb. 14th, 2006 08:23 pm (UTC)
agreed, although i think my version contained a bit more riteous anger
valleyman
Feb. 14th, 2006 09:32 pm (UTC)
March 26th Mate
angusabranson
Feb. 14th, 2006 09:43 pm (UTC)
That may be the case north of the border but down here they're talking about implementing it in 2007.
mrsdominic
Feb. 14th, 2006 09:46 pm (UTC)
Best thing to happen to Irish pubs. Although the clubs smell of stale sweat which isn't so nice.

And happy not to be breathing in secondhand smoke anymore. Saw far too many of my releatives die from lung cancer to think smoking should be allowed at all.
_grimtales_
Feb. 14th, 2006 09:55 pm (UTC)
Bit two ways on this one, freedom from or freedom to. One smoker can harm several other people, so on balance it feels right.
serpentstar
Feb. 14th, 2006 11:07 pm (UTC)
I'm very happy with the ban.

A partial ban would have been dreadful -- all the places with "smoker's licenses" would be basically untenable to non-smokers, 'cos 99% of the people in them would be smoking. So I'd never get to socialise with my mates who smoke, ever, anywhere. :p
heliograph
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:08 am (UTC)
I don't think that's true. It could be just like it was a couple of years ago: you're in the non-smoking section because of your offspring, and your smoking buddies come over occassionally to chat.

I think (and this is true here) that the owners of these places want to server both smokers and non-smokers... basically they don't want to turn anybody away. Even a place that allowed smoking would have a non-smoking section. In many ways I think this would be better: if people abosolutely didn't want to eat or drink somewhere people smoked they could, and then commerce could decide how many smoking establishments there were.
serpentstar
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:24 am (UTC)
Curse you and your logic. ;)

Yeah, maybe. There's still the issue of the poor staff who work those places though -- do their employers really want to risk being sued 20 years later when all the bar staff get horrible lung diseases from passive smoking?

Just ban the sale of the stuff and have done. Except cigars, obviously. They're civilised. And healthy too, I believe. Very healthy.
heliograph
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:42 am (UTC)
What, did you immigrate to America when I wasn't looking? I didn't think the UK had embraced the American sue-as-a-first-resort philosophy. Don't you guys still have coal mines? Are those guys suing anybody?

Nobody is forcing anyone to work in a place where people smoke: if it bothers you, just don't take the job. There's always retail or Starbucks.

So can you smoke in Starbucks?

The total ban isn't the death of smoking: it just emphasizes the embarrassment of smokers. Here in Mass seeing smokers outside slowly freezing to death (or dodging rain) while they're taking their smoke break is super common. If you see a group of people hanging around outside of almost any building (but especially bars) they're usually smoking.

But I don't think you can find a single person who has stopped smoking because they can't smoke inside of buildings. That argument is baseless. If you want to treat it as a health issue you really need to beat on second-hand smoke.
serpentstar
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:54 am (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of beating on anything else. I'm an asthmatic; breathing in second-hand smoke is unpleasant and damaging to me. I couldn't care less about the smokers' health.

People do sue over health issues. I live in a former coal & iron area, and we still get leaflets through our door about once a year offering to help us sue the relevant party for any lung diseases we may have picked up through our former jobs as coal miners (if we had former jobs as coal miners).
heliograph
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
The beating was in the BBC arty.

Clearly your asthma was caused by inhaling all that second hand coal dust. Clearly.

To drag this more on topic, one of the reasons I avoid Vegas is how prevalently smokey it is. But even if they didn't let you smoke inside (and I can't see that ever happening in Vegas) I still wouldn't go ;-)
jonnynexus
Feb. 15th, 2006 07:05 am (UTC)
I once heard someone say that having a non-smoking section in a pub was like having a non-urinating section in a swimming pool. :)
bridiep
Feb. 15th, 2006 07:56 am (UTC)
LOL!!!!
heliograph
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:05 am (UTC)
Maybe this is an American vs. English usage problem on my end, but how are these two things from the article equivalent?

"MPs have voted by a huge margin to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England."
and
"The Commons decided by a margin of 200 to impose a ban on smoking in all enclosed public spaces."

Since when is a private club a public space? Or is this like the public vs. private school thing?

If this works out like it does here, it'll just result in the smokers having to hang around and smoke outside the pub. But on the bright side, maybe it'll reduce alcohol consumption, which is also bad for you?

I'm afraid I'm with Angus on this one. I recognize that smoking has potential health problems beyond the smoker, but considering the context I'm pretty sure drinking a few beers is just as bad (if not worse) for your health. I've never seen someone stagger out of a bar and drop his girlfriend on her head because they were smoking. Then again, I've only seen that with alcohol in London ;-)

If a venue has clearly posted smoking rules, I don't see why you can't make it legal to smoke while drinking. If it bothers you you either 1) don't have to work there or 2) don't have to drink there.
angusabranson
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:54 am (UTC)
**The Commons decided by a margin of 200 to impose a ban on smoking in all enclosed public spaces."
Since when is a private club a public space? Or is this like the public vs. private school thing?**

The article doesn't actually give all of the information. There was a series of votes. One for a total ban (which passed) and two ammendment votes (both failed) which allowed exemptions for private clubs and the other for exemptions on clubs. The exemption votes still had large majorities against smoking though so a total ban will be put into place.
snesgirl
Feb. 15th, 2006 10:51 am (UTC)
The problem with that scenario is that...
I like to frequent bars because that were my drinkign friends are.
I happen to be tee total - whcih doesn't affect them, they chug drink, I don't.

However, the fact that most UK pubs havea head height cloud of smoke in them bothers me greatly. I'm asthmatic and smoke also brings me out in hives ( unfortunately).

I am all for the smokign ban, but can't really see how it can be sensibly implmented. You can't arrest people for smoking in a public area, becasue it's nto illegal.
angusabranson
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:15 pm (UTC)
Re: The problem with that scenario is that...
**However, the fact that most UK pubs havea head height cloud of smoke in them bothers me greatly. I'm asthmatic and smoke also brings me out in hives (unfortunately).**

Head height cloud of smoke? You're only a little lady, that would mean the smoke was circulating around my chest!! :p

Talk about me having my head above the clouds!! hehe...
jonnynexus
Feb. 15th, 2006 12:41 pm (UTC)
Well someone's started a debate on the CM forums to which I've added my thoughts (in favour of the ban) if anyone's interested:

http://criticalmissforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=196
( 22 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow