Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Harrowby Hall on February 10, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
-
A post by Humph in Music was my first love
Every time that I hear this, I close my eyes, I am sitting in the downstairs bar of The Clachan, Mitre Court, City of London with my friends. We are drinking,some are smoking,some are eating peanuts. Now that pub stands empty and boarded up, courtesy of NuLabours smoking ban.
The smoking ban killed the pub.
I would be very rich if I had £1 for every time I have heard this old canard trotted out. The proportion of the population which smokes has been falling steadily over the past decades. According to the ONS in 1974 45% of the adult population were smokers. 21% of men now smoke and a third of the adult population now claim to be ex-smokers.
According to Humph's misrepresentation of reality then, pubs were kept in business by a dwindling band of self-destructive nicotine addicts and the final straw was the desire by misguided politician to make the atmosphere inside alehouses acceptable to normal people. For decades I found the interior of pubs to be so unpleasant - due to cigarette smoke - that I visited them rarely. If my experiences were typical then the smoking ban reinvigorated the pub not killed it off.
If any political decision was responsible for damaging the pub it had come a decade or two before the smoking ban - it was Margaret Thatcher's insistence that breweries get rid of their tied estate. Whereas breweries had largely used pubs to generate turnover, the property companies saw each pub as a profit centre. Successful pubs were now informal restaurants which also sold beer and which catered for families, not man caves. Thatcher appeared to believe that a pub which only sold one brewery's products was uncompetitive. It never occurred to her to use the same argument to force Marks & Spencer to sell BHS and Debenham products.
-
A post by Humph in Music was my first love
If my experiences were typical then the smoking ban reinvigorated the pub not killed it off.
I fail to see how the closing of hundreds of thousands of pubs can be said be "reinvigorating". Go on a pub crawl in the Sevenoaks area & you will find there is a nine mile journey between The Black Horse, Borough Green, and The Anchor Inn, Sevenoaks, because the twelve pubs in between those two establishments have all closed down.
Successful pubs were now informal restaurants which also sold beer and which catered for families, not man caves.
I think you will find that the main function of the pub was for friends to meet outside of their family constraints. Pubs had darts teams, football teams, quiz teams. If you did not like such an environment then you were not forced into using a pub.
Now what are we for the most part left with? Sit down restuarants where a table for one means that you sit on your own all night, and those ghastly Weatherspoons drinking warehouses which cater only for those who want to neck it down as cheaply as is possible.
-
I am so glad smoking is frowned upon these days, as the damage it has done to the nation's health is appalling. Second hand smoke can be very injurious too. One of the number of reasons my husband and I dislike pubs, and only frequent them for the occasional meal, was because of people smoking in them.
-
I fail to see how the closing of hundreds of thousands of pubs can be said be "reinvigorating".
Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that hundreds of thousands of pubs have closed due to the smoking ban?
Now what are we for the most part left with? Sit down restuarants where a table for one means that you sit on your own all night, and those ghastly Weatherspoons drinking warehouses which cater only for those who want to neck it down as cheaply as is possible.
Have you been to a pub at all recently? I've been to several, and whilst there isn more of a focus on the food side (a good thing IMO), the traditional pub still exists.
The main reason pubs are closing down is because of the availability of cheaper alcohol in supermarkets. There are too many pubs for the number of customers. It's inevitable some will close down.
-
Another reason in rural areas at least is that we have effective drink driving laws now, thankfully.
I had a lovely evening in a pub this week, open log fire, stuck to mineral water and nobody complaining about the smoking ban.
-
The main reason pubs are closing down is because of the availability of cheaper alcohol in supermarkets. There are too many pubs for the number of customers. It's inevitable some will close down.
There are no supermarkets on that stretch of the A25. What happened was that as one pub closed down, the regulars moved to the next one, until eventually they were all closed down. TBH The New Inn, Sevenoaks was no great loss.
-
Can you cite any evidence whatsoever that hundreds of thousands of pubs have closed due to the smoking ban?
Have you been to a pub at all recently? I've been to several, and whilst there isn more of a focus on the food side (a good thing IMO), the traditional pub still exists.
The main reason pubs are closing down is because of the availability of cheaper alcohol in supermarkets. There are too many pubs for the number of customers. It's inevitable some will close down.
I mentioned one part of Kent specifically in my last post, the situation in The City of London is I think different. I can remember when there was a pub every two hundred yards or so, now one has to look hard so as to find a pub, as opposed to a restaurant. I can remember as recently as twenty years ago it was quite acceptable in the City to drink at lunchtime, now that does not seem to be the case. FTR I would far rather the company of somebody with a sagging belly & smile on their face & a glass in their hand, rather than the company of a narcissistic bore bragging about gym membership & talking about "cardio vascs".
-
Pubs have been in decline since 1905.
Tax on beer to discourage use is having the desired affect.
Of course 30years from now because everyone lives longer the NHS will collapse.
Right get back on the fags and booze people! :)
-
Pubs have been in decline since 1905.
Tax on beer to discourage use is having the desired affect.
Of course 30years from now because everyone lives longer the NHS will collapse.
Right get back on the fags and booze people! :)
I smoke one cigarette a year on "National No Smoking Day" as a gesture of defiance.
-
I smoke one cigarette a year on "National No Smoking Day" as a gesture of defiance.
Against what?
-
Politicians who tell me what to do.
I swig my way through January, too.
-
Politicians who tell me what to do.
I swig my way through January, too.
When do you shoot up?
-
When do you shoot up?
When our cat runs up on the curtains, a quick squirt & she jumps down.
Note for Floo: I use a water pistol.
-
When our cat runs up on the curtains, a quick squirt & she jumps down.
Note for Floo: I use a water pistol.
?
-
?
Floo, if our cat runs up the curtains, we shoot at her with a water pistol so as to prevent further damage to the curtains. She jumps down.
-
There are no supermarkets on that stretch of the A25.
So what? People don't say "let's go out for a drink and then visit the supermarket. They visit the supermarket (which doesn't have to be on the same road as the pub) probably during their weekly shop and take the alcohol back to the house and drink it there.
-
I mentioned one part of Kent specifically in my last post
But without citing any evidence that the pubs closed down because of the drinking ban.
the situation in The City of London is I think different. I can remember when there was a pub every two hundred yards or so, now one has to look hard so as to find a pub,
In the City of London? Really?
If there are fewer pubs in the city, it is more likely due to the change in drinking culture at work. When I first started, going to the pub of a Friday lunchtime was a ritual that everybody did. Now it is far less acceptable to be seen drinking alcohol during your lunch break.
as opposed to a restaurant. I can remember as recently as twenty years ago it was quite acceptable in the City to drink at lunchtime, now that does not seem to be the case.
So not the smoking ban then.
-
Politicians who tell me what to do.
You're free to smoke yourself to death just not to inflict it on others. Politicians should be making legislation to protect people from hazards like that.
-
In the City of London? Really?
If there are fewer pubs in the city, it is more likely due to the change in drinking culture at work. When I first started, going to the pub of a Friday lunchtime was a ritual that everybody did. Now it is far less acceptable to be seen drinking alcohol during your lunch break.
So not the smoking ban then.
I did say above that the City of London is a different matter. If anything, the smoking ban in the City has led to a camaraderie among smokers that was not there in days of yore. Now most buildings there are surrounded by people chatting & smoking, taking unofficial breaks.
FTR when I was working in the City as a young man, the boys went to the pub most lunchtimes, Friday was when the girls joined us.
-
You're free to smoke yourself to death just not to inflict it on others. Politicians should be making legislation to protect people from hazards like that.
I do not smoke.
What I miss are the pubs. There may be some who like to sit in restuarants & who consider any attempt at conversation to be an interference with their meal, I do not want their company any more than they want mine.
-
I do not smoke.
Never said you did, but you are free to so the government is not telling you what to do but rightly protecting people.
What I miss are the pubs. There may be some who like to sit in restuarants & who consider any attempt at conversation to be an interference with their meal, I do not want their company any more than they want mine.
Fine, but as others have said there are other reasons for pubs closing rather than the smoking ban. Even if it was the cause people's health should take preference over your pleasure.
-
I can still remember when pubs were smoky but most people didn't spend hours and hours in them & a little passive smoking doesn't harm. If it did, we'd all be dead or dying.
Some pubs have gardens or outdoor areas where smokers are welcome. Other people smoking has never bothered me - there aren't many around now! I have the occasional cigarette which I enjoy but don't inflict it on anyone else, sit by the open back door. At my previous job smokers went outside and built friendships and contacts with those from other departments.
I like pubs with restaurants but we still have quite a few pubs that are traditional.
-
I really don't know what the OP is on about.
The industry is adapting to prevailing circumstances. This means it has changed. But isn't that the case with every industry?
As for traditional pubs they are still around and in our area we are lucky enough to have a local brewery (Castle Rock) who combine the best of the old with the new. Plenty of real ale and men with beards and sandals. Dogs even (a pet hate of mine) but traditional in a pub sense, and then good food served as well. Live music a couple of nights, pub quiz etc. Outside area for smoking with those heater things that give you a tan if you stand to close to them.
It's all good from my perspective.
Even our local Wetherspoons is tolerable. NO music, good beer and cheap prices makes for a very pleasant evening out.
-
I've written on this board before about my high regard for a good pub. The reduction in numbers is because of a number of contributory factors, and I think the smoking ban was amongst the least of those. Along with a few that I miss, the vast majority of pubs I have seen go have been no great losses. I dislike all Weatherspoons, but they serve a purpose for others.
In part though a good pub is what you make it. Find one that isn't too bad, and go often to know the bar staff. Make sure you tip them, it's a hard job, and you get better service. Nod to the other regulars you see, and talk to them when it is right. Locals take effort to make yours.
-
OK since Robbie has advised me against writing about Brommers too much, let us look at Sham.
The pubs in Sham were mostly large, bustling, working class places with pool tables & dart boards. Most of them are gone, except for the inevitable Weatherspoons in the town centre. Jeremy has asked me for figures regarding pub closures as a result of the smoking ban, that is a pointless question since official stats are not going to say that a government policy which claimed to improve peoples health has had any negative effects. Every landlord of every pub that was closing told me it was the smoking ban which killed his pub.
Yes there are a few small pubs still open, one in Lee next to the Polish shop has kept open because the Lib Dem idea of outlawing outdoor heaters never got off the runway. Go to Forest Hill, and you might find the odd fiercely cliquey place still open, where you are left in no doubt that your place is in the cold bit where the locals don't go.
But the OP arose from my nostalgia for the smoky City of London pubs of forty years ago. To enter into the lower bar, of The Clachan, with its smoke, music, dim lights, and everybody smartly dressed & looking for conversation, was to enter into a mysterious world where strangers became friends. That world has gone, scrubbed clean by those who tell me that the destruction of that happy other world was for everybody's good,
There were never any fights, I cannot even recall any arguments. Yet that agreeable world was destroyed by those who never entered the same, because they disliked that nether world and they saw fit to tell other people what to do.
-
Think on the basis of that post I've done a bit more drinking in Forest Hill than you recently - the Weatherspoons there is still horrible though - The Dartmouth, Sylvan and Signal (the Hob as was) are all fine
-
In my experience Wetherspoons pubs are ghastly full stop. They start off OK-The Opera House in Tunbridge Wells being one example, and The Moon on the Hill, in Harrow, being another, but they quickly turn into shit. They remind me of an "affordable" estate of homes, which are crap only eighteen months later.
IMHO the Harvest Moon in Orpington has a useful function in that the drunks & derelicts get in there, rather than in the town's better pubs. The Postage Stamp at Crystal Palace is terrifying, only go in there if you need the loo.
-
Jeremy has asked me for figures regarding pub closures as a result of the smoking ban, that is a pointless question
No it isn't. You made an assertion about why pubs are closing. I think it is only fair that you provide evidence for your assertion. If you have no evidence than this whole thread is just about a guess.
Every landlord of every pub that was closing told me it was the smoking ban which killed his pub.
What? They all come and talk to you, do they? Of course, a landlord is not going to admit their pub closed because they managed it poorly or were unable to make it attractive for the punters. The smoking ban makes a convenient scapegoat.
But the OP arose from my nostalgia for the smoky City of London pubs of forty years ago. To enter into the lower bar, of The Clachan, with its smoke, music, dim lights, and everybody smartly dressed & looking for conversation, was to enter into a mysterious world where strangers became friends. That world has gone, scrubbed clean by those who tell me that the destruction of that happy other world was for everybody's good,
Ah the nostalgia of the smokey carcinogenic pub that left your clothes reading of stale cigarette smoke for the afternoon and journey home.
There were never any fights
I went in a pub to celebrate a legal drink on my eighteenth birthday - before the smoking ban. A fight broke out between two of the other customers.
I cannot even recall any arguments.
Sounds pretty boring. One of the best bits about going to pubs is having drunken arguments with your mates without realising that everybody is talking bollocks.
Yet that agreeable world was destroyed by those who never entered the same, because they disliked that nether world and they saw fit to tell other people what to do.
That agreeable world was poisoning people.
-
I can still remember when pubs were smoky but most people didn't spend hours and hours in them & a little passive smoking doesn't harm. If it did, we'd all be dead or dying.
Some pubs have gardens or outdoor areas where smokers are welcome. Other people smoking has never bothered me - there aren't many around now! I have the occasional cigarette which I enjoy but don't inflict it on anyone else, sit by the open back door. At my previous job smokers went outside and built friendships and contacts with those from other departments.
I like pubs with restaurants but we still have quite a few pubs that are traditional.
Passive smoking can do a great deal of harm. My daughter has asthma, it brings on an attack.
-
No it isn't. You made an assertion about why pubs are closing. I think it is only fair that you provide evidence for your assertion. If you have no evidence than this whole thread is just about a guess.
I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to use anecdotes.
What? They all come and talk to you, do they? Of course, a landlord is not going to admit their pub closed because they managed it poorly or were unable to make it attractive for the punters. The smoking ban makes a convenient scapegoat.
Yes I spoke with all the landlords in the pubs that I visited, they knew me by name.
Ah the nostalgia of the smokey carcinogenic pub that left your clothes reading of stale cigarette smoke for the afternoon and journey home.
If you had worked with us, we would have invited you to join us. If you had declined, so be it.
I went in a pub to celebrate a legal drink on my eighteenth birthday - before the smoking ban. A fight broke out between two of the other customers.
We never brawled.
Sounds pretty boring. One of the best bits about going to pubs is having drunken arguments with your mates without realising that everybody is talking bollocks.
Sometimes we put the world to rights, and sometimes we did talk bollocks. We enjoyed both.
That agreeable world was poisoning people.
It was our decision. Those who did not like our world chose to take it from us. They did not have to join us if they did not want to.
To revisit those closed pubs is a strange experience, it is like seeing ghosts of the living. I will always remember those places with fondness.
-
Passive smoking can do a great deal of harm. My daughter has asthma, it brings on an attack.
It generally doesn't do any harm apart from making clothes and hair smell, unless someone is sitting in a densely smoky atmosphere for many hours on a regular basis.
If someone has respiratory problems just a little secondary smoke is bad, & they'd avoid it, but not everyone does have respiratory problems. Anyway there are no such places now. Smoking is banned nearly everywhere.
-
It generally doesn't do any harm apart from making clothes and hair smell, unless someone is sitting in a densely smoky atmosphere for many hours on a regular basis.
If someone has respiratory problems just a little secondary smoke is bad, & they'd avoid it, but not everyone does have respiratory problems. Anyway there are no such places now. Smoking is banned nearly everywhere.
Apart from the harm it can do, non smokers can find it very unpleasant being in the presence of someone who is smoking. I am so glad it has been banned in enclosed public places.
-
I remember when pregnant with my eldest, having lunch in a cafe where a woman at the next table chain smoked and blew the smoke my way. I had to leave. I've never had a problem with smoking in pubs, but in spaces with babies and small children the ban is welcome.
-
I think it should be illegal parents to smoke in their home when the children are present.
Before the dangers of passive smoking were fully realised, our daughter's in-laws smoked when their son was present. He had frequent chest infections, which the doctor suggested might be caused by him inhaling the smoke. They were shocked and gave up the habit, his chest infections were no more.
-
I remember going into O'Neills in Dublin, not the chain we have here, in 2005 about a year after the ban in the Republic and suddenly being amazed that I could see the wall and ceiling. That was the day that I was converted to the ban because it made such a difference
-
I think it should be illegal parents to smoke in their home when the children are present.
Before the dangers of passive smoking were fully realised, our daughter's in-laws smoked when their son was present. He had frequent chest infections, which the doctor suggested might be caused by him inhaling the smoke. They were shocked and gave up the habit, his chest infections were no more.
So what you actually want is a ban on smoking in enclosed spaces, including homes by anyone when children are possibly going to be present. Why just children?
-
So what you actually want is a ban on smoking in enclosed spaces, including homes by anyone when children are possibly going to be present. Why just children?
Whilst smoking is legal, it is up to adults if they wish to put their health in jeopardy, providing they do in the privacy of their own home with no children present.
-
Whilst smoking is legal, it is up to adults if they wish to put their health in jeopardy, providing they do in the privacy of their own home with no children present.
Again, that doesn't then apply to 'parents' which is what you started with and why just children? Surely your point is saying that people should not have a right to smoke in an enclosed space in the presence of anyone who might object, or in the case of children might be assumed by the state to object?
-
Again, that doesn't then apply to 'parents' which is what you started with and why just children? Surely your point is saying that people should not have a right to smoke in an enclosed space in the presence of anyone who might object, or in the case of children might be assumed by the state to object?
I wouldn't visit anyone I knew smoked in their home. Even if they didn't smoke in my presence, I object to the smell.
-
I wouldn't visit anyone I knew smoked in their home. Even if they didn't smoke in my presence, I object to the smell.
Which is irrelevant to the question of what legislation you want to have enacted. Say a couple live together, and one of them smokes, surely by your idea you would support the other being able to legally object?
-
Which is irrelevant to the question of what legislation you want to have enacted. Say a couple live together, and one of them smokes, surely by your idea you would support the other being able to legally object?
Oh for heaven's sake, stop being so pedantic, you are my husband's clone! ::)
Surely if you object to your partner smoking you wouldn't have got with them in the first place?
-
Apart from the harm it can do, non smokers can find it very unpleasant being in the presence of someone who is smoking. I am so glad it has been banned in enclosed public places.
So you, who has boasted many times about hardly ever visiting pubs, think it a good idea that those of us who enjoyed smoky rooms with music should be banned from enjoying the same? It's not as if you were forced to come and join us.
-
I remember when pregnant with my eldest, having lunch in a cafe where a woman at the next table chain smoked and blew the smoke my way. I had to leave. I've never had a problem with smoking in pubs, but in spaces with babies and small children the ban is welcome.
I remember in Blackpool in 1995, I was in a cafe & everybody else was puffing away like a chimney. There was a baby in a pushchair present, the pushchair was on top of a table.
-
So you, who has boasted many times about hardly ever visiting pubs, think it a good idea that those of us who enjoyed smoky rooms with music should be banned from enjoying the same? It's not as if you were forced to come and join us.
So everyone in the pub liked the smoke? Because I can tell you now that was incorrect.
-
So you, who has boasted many times about hardly ever visiting pubs, think it a good idea that those of us who enjoyed smoky rooms with music should be banned from enjoying the same? It's not as if you were forced to come and join us.
Oh dear! ::)
-
So everyone in the pub liked the smoke? Because I can tell you now that was incorrect.
Were you there?
-
Were you there?
Many many many times
-
I am not talking about you in Dublin in 2005, I am talking about the City of London in 1978. If you did not like the smoky downstairs bar, you could always stay upstairs.
Now of course, the whole place is closed.
-
I am not talking about you in Dublin in 2005, I am talking about the City of London in 1978. If you did not like the smoky downstairs bar, you could always stay upstairs.
Now of course, the whole place is closed.
And since it wasn't smoky in 2005 in O'Neils, you seem somewhat confused.
-
And since it wasn't smoky in 2005 in O'Neils, you seem somewhat confused.
I remember going into O'Neills in Dublin, not the chain we have here, in 2005 about a year after the ban in the Republic and suddenly being amazed that I could see the wall and ceiling. That was the day that I was converted to the ban because it made such a difference
Is that confusing?
-
The smoking ban was also, I believe, about providing a safe environment for staff who worked in them. Same as if people work in a factory, or on a
building site or anywhere, they have a legal right to be protected from hazards. Customers could choose to go in smoky pubs or not.
-
The smoking ban was also, I believe, about providing a safe environment for staff who worked in them. Same as if people work in a factory, or on a
building site or anywhere, they have a legal right to be protected from hazards. Customers could choose to go in smoky pubs or not.
And what about those who were happy to work in such an environment?
-
And what about those who were happy to work in such an environment?
That is not an option under Health and Safety laws I believe. Employers have a duty of care regardless and there can't be opt outs as this would open all sorts of problems.
-
Is that confusing?
Yes because it's obvious that being in O'Neils in 2095 wasn't the only time I have been in a pub and that's illustrated by the very post you quoted.
-
And what about those who were happy to work in such an environment?
What about them?
-
Yes because it's obvious that being in O'Neils in 2095 wasn't the only time I have been in a pub and that's illustrated by the very post you quoted.
2095? Is this intended for my "Out of the Unknown" thread?
;)
-
The smoking ban was also, I believe, about providing a safe environment for staff who worked in them. Same as if people work in a factory, or on a
building site or anywhere, they have a legal right to be protected from hazards. Customers could choose to go in smoky pubs or not.
Nobody has to work on a building site.
-
2095? Is this intended for my "Out of the Unknown" thread?
;)
In that time the AI are allowed in as long as they keep their humans outside
-
I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to use anecdotes.
But you do understand that your anecdotes have no value as evidence?
Yes I spoke with all the landlords in the pubs that I visited, they knew me by name.
You didn't answer my main charge which was that every one of those landlords had a motive to claim the closure was due to the smoking ban even if it wasn't.
It was our decision. Those who did not like our world chose to take it from us. They did not have to join us if they did not want to.
What about the bar staff?
Your World has not been taken away. You may still gather in a room with beer and cigarettes and put thew World to rights, it just has to be in a private residence.
-
Nobody has to work on a building site.
And on all building sites responsible running is the law
-
It generally doesn't do any harm ... unless someone is sitting in a densely smoky atmosphere for many hours on a regular basis.
Like the bar staff?
-
In the past, yes, but bars haven't been smoky for many years. Would be interesting if there was a survey on the health of bar staff in the days of smoking, I'll try and find out if there has been one.
It's far better now that pubs and bars are smoke free but some have outside areas where punters can smoke which, to me, is OK. I don't grudge people their habits as long as they don't inflict them on others.
-
This article says that bar workers' respiratory health improved a year after the smoking ban, item 8.
Seems to have been beneficial in many ways.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40444460
-
This article says that bar workers' respiratory health improved a year after the smoking ban, item 8.
Seems to have been beneficial in many ways.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40444460
Well they would say that, wouldn't they? ;)
I still shed a manly tear when I walk past the closed pubs where I spent many happy hours as a young man, those who want to cheer the demise of the same I politely ask to so in my absence.
-
The smoking ban was also, I believe, about providing a safe environment for staff who worked in them. Same as if people work in a factory, or on a
building site or anywhere, they have a legal right to be protected from hazards. Customers could choose to go in smoky pubs or not.
As I understand it the smoking ban is a piece of workplace legislation. It was never enacted to protect customers.
-
Nobody has to work on a building site.
You don't understand Health and Safety laws.
-
As I understand it the smoking ban is a piece of workplace legislation. It was never enacted to protect customers.
Yes, that's correct.
-
Well they would say that, wouldn't they? ;)
And your landlords who claimed the smoking ban drove them out of business would say that wouldn't they?
-
As I understand it the smoking ban is a piece of workplace legislation. It was never enacted to protect customers.
That's why it is not possible for pubs (or other workplaces) to have indoor smokers' rooms - because some member of staff has to service the room.
-
And your landlords who claimed the smoking ban drove them out of business would say that wouldn't they?
They were my friends (sort of).
Harman, and Blunkett were not.
-
They were my friends (sort of).
Harman, and Blunkett were not.
This just makes your case look worse
-
The smoking ban went too far. Even outdoor shelters have to be partly open, so that either the smokers freeze to death in winter, or if they are heated, half the heat escapes, which is environmentally disastrous. It should be legal to have them fully enclosed, and if a pub (or other public building) can provide a room which does not connect with a food preparation or eating area and is behind a normally-closed door, separate from the main public area, smoking should be allowed inside the building.
Furthermore, the revolting photos on tobacco products are both unpleasant and unnecessary. A clear, unambiguous warning in large letters, as before, is all that is necessary. Smoking should be absolutely banned to under-18s, but adults - i.e. people over that age - should be given the health information they need, then left to make their own decision. Everyone now knows the dangers of smoking (although pipes and cigars are both much less dangerous and much less addictive than cigs, because they are not inhaled: it is most unfair that pipe-tobacco and cigars labour under all the same restrictions as cigs, which are the real killers).
-
The smoking ban went too far. Even outdoor shelters have to be partly open, so that either the smokers freeze to death in winter, or if they are heated, half the heat escapes, which is environmentally disastrous. It should be legal to have them fully enclosed, and if a pub (or other public building) can provide a room which does not connect with a food preparation or eating area and is behind a normally-closed door, separate from the main public area, smoking should be allowed inside the building.
Furthermore, the revolting photos on tobacco products are both unpleasant and unnecessary. A clear, unambiguous warning in large letters, as before, is all that is necessary. Smoking should be absolutely banned to under-18s, but adults - i.e. people over that age - should be given the health information they need, then left to make their own decision. Everyone now knows the dangers of smoking (although pipes and cigars are both much less dangerous and much less addictive than cigs, because they are not inhaled: it is most unfair that pipe-tobacco and cigars labour under all the same restrictions as cigs, which are the real killers).
The ban has nothing to do with eating areas but is about staff being regularly exposed to smoke or areas where smoking has occurred, such as works vehicles. Specially designated rooms or fully enclosed smoking enclosures would mean staff would still be being exposed to hazards and would open up all sorts of attempts to get round the ban.
-
The ban has nothing to do with eating areas but is about staff being regularly exposed to smoke or areas where smoking has occurred, such as works vehicles. Specially designated rooms or fully enclosed smoking enclosures would mean staff would sill be being exposed to hazards and would open up all sorts of attempts to get round the ban.
Agreed.
Smoking kills, so anything which puts people off the ghastly habit has to be applauded, imo.
-
The smoking ban went too far. Even outdoor shelters have to be partly open, so that either the smokers freeze to death in winter, or if they are heated, half the heat escapes, which is environmentally disastrous. It should be legal to have them fully enclosed, and if a pub (or other public building) can provide a room which does not connect with a food preparation or eating area and is behind a normally-closed door, separate from the main public area, smoking should be allowed inside the building.
Furthermore, the revolting photos on tobacco products are both unpleasant and unnecessary. A clear, unambiguous warning in large letters, as before, is all that is necessary. Smoking should be absolutely banned to under-18s, but adults - i.e. people over that age - should be given the health information they need, then left to make their own decision. Everyone now knows the dangers of smoking (although pipes and cigars are both much less dangerous and much less addictive than cigs, because they are not inhaled: it is most unfair that pipe-tobacco and cigars labour under all the same restrictions as cigs, which are the real killers).
Round of applause :)
-
I have to ask - have you ever seen anyone die of lung cancer?
-
I have to ask - have you ever seen anyone die of lung cancer?
Yes I have. I have also seen somebody die of Pancreatic cancer.
-
I have to ask - have you ever seen anyone die of lung cancer?
My maternal grandfather, a smoker, who died before I was born, had lung cancer. According to my grandmother his condition before death was very distressing indeed. :o
-
Yes I have. I have also seen somebody die of Pancreatic cancer.
The most common cause for which is smoking and heavy alcohol consumption combined. A friend of mine died from this after his 5 pints a night and 40 fags a day habit at the age of 48.
I'm sorry - no I'm not sorry, anything that discourages people from smoking is a good thing.
-
Even outdoor shelters have to be partly open ...
Err the clue is in the name outdoor shelter - if they weren't at least partly open they wouldn't be outdoor shelters would they!
-
There has certainly been a decline in the number of pubs in the UK, but I can't see how the smoking ban is a major, let alone a determinative, factor given that the decline in pub numbers had been going on for decades prior to the smoking ban and has continued in a similar fashion since.
Actually I suspect the smoking ban has been pretty neutral - for each person stopping going to the pub because they can't smoke there will be another tempted back because they wont pick up the shirt they were wearing the night before and find it reeking of smoke. Plus those people returning may be much more likely to choose to eat in the pub (as a non smoker one of the biggest plusses of the smoking ban is being able to enjoy food without having to breath in the guy at the next table's smoke). And pubs make a lot more out of food than from a few pints.
-
The smoking ban went too far.
I disagree completely - I think it has been a massively positive development.
A somewhat unexpected consequence is that it is becoming increasingly rare to see anyone smoking in public full stop. Even though you can smoke in public in the open, for example while just walking down the street, it is becoming less and less common to see. I think that one of the effects of the smoking ban indoors in public places is that smokers increasing feel that they should only smoke in private, and that public spaces (indoor or out) should be smoke free. Mobile phones have played a role too I suspect - not so easy to smoke while texting and walking!
-
Round of applause :)
Do you think a round of applause is really valid for suggesting that people should be exposed to health risks at work because other people want to smoke for their pleasure?
-
Do you think a round of applause is really valid for suggesting that people should be exposed to health risks at work because other people want to smoke for their pleasure?
What about those who were quite happy to work in smoky environments? Remember the case some years ago where a group of gay men were prosecuted for assault following some kind of SM orgy, even though nobody had complained? In the newspapers, there were many letters expressing anger that such a prosecution had been brought because all those taking part had agreed to do so. Surely the barman happy to work in a smoky pub would be in much the same situation?
-
Do you think a round of applause is really valid for suggesting that people should be exposed to health risks at work because other people want to smoke for their pleasure?
HWB is making light of something, which is very serious problem. >:( The fact that smoking can damage the health of non smokers too, should be enough to ban it completely from ALL public areas.
-
What about those who were quite happy to work in smoky environments? Remember the case some years ago where a group of gay men were prosecuted for assault following some kind of SM orgy, even though nobody had complained? In the newspapers, there were many letters expressing anger that such a prosecution had been brought because all those taking part had agreed to do so. Surely the barman happy to work in a smoky pub would be in much the same situation?
A builder on a building site might be happy to work without safety gear but his employer has a duty to protect him and pull him off site if he doesn’t comply with H&S regs. This is the same thing. An employer has a duty of care to their employees hence the enforcement of smoking bans in the workplace.
You are confusing criminal law with workplace legislation.
-
Quite a lot of pubs in Norfolk being converted to domestic houses, presumably, more money in it for developers. Don't think it's because of smoking - our nearest pub disappeared, quite sad, as it was several hundred years old, now we're left with more modern pubs, OK, but less atmosphere.
-
What about those who were quite happy to work in smoky environments?
And how about construction workers who are happy to work on a building site without protective clothing. The point is that quite rightly under the law an employer is expected to minimise the risk to his or her employees, so it is irrelevant whether a construction worker is happy to work without a helmet, or a member of bar staff is happy to work in a smoky environment - they aren't allowed to.
And this notion of being happy to work in such an environment is a misnomer - ask someone unable to work due to an injury caused by failure to wear protective equipment whether they are still happy in hindsight - you'll get a different response. Likewise someone contracting a work-related cancer.
-
Smoking related diseases are costing the strapped for cash NHS serious dosh, so it is only right that people should be protected from smoky environments.
-
Smoking related diseases are costing the strapped for cash NHS serious dosh, so it is only right that people should be protected from smoky environments.
Of course there is then the question of the amount raised in duty
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
-
Agreed.
Smoking kills, so anything which puts people off the ghastly habit has to be applauded, imo.
Why not ban unhealthy food while you're at it? And cars? and oblige people by law to visit their local gym at least once a week?
-
Of course there is then the question of the amount raised in duty
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-treasury/
Hmmmmm! That is often put forward as an excuse by the smoking lobby! ::)
-
Hmmmmm! That is often put forward as an excuse by the smoking lobby! ::)
You raised the questions of costs - if overall it raises more money than it costs then your point is specious.
-
You raised the questions of costs - if overall it raises more money than it costs then your point is specious.
Other people have rubbished the argument about the taxes on tobacco products actually bringing in more than the NHS spends on smoking related illnesses. There was a debate about it not long ago.
-
Another point about costs is that if smokers pop their clogs early, they save the state the cost of looking after them in their dotage.
-
Other people have rubbished the argument about the taxes on tobacco products actually bringing in more than the NHS spends on smoking related illnesses. There was a debate about it not long ago.
Care to cite some evidence? Otherwise this is just your asertion
-
Smoking kills, so anything which puts people off the ghastly habit has to be applauded, imo.
Anything? Amputation of their hands, can't smoke then?
-
Smoking related diseases are costing the strapped for cash NHS serious dosh, so it is only right that people should be protected from smoky environments.
Are prepared to follow that argument to its logical conclusion?
Smokers die younger so they might actually cost a lot less compared to someone who survives past 90 and spends the last ten years of their life needing full time care.
I vape so an ex-smoker and agree with the ban, although its pretty crazy that I shouldn't vape in public places and have to stand with the smokers in many instances.
I say shouldn't because I ignore it mostly, on the train now having a puff. :)
-
Other people have rubbished the argument about the taxes on tobacco products actually bringing in more than the NHS spends on smoking related illnesses. There was a debate about it not long ago.
Translation: I know what I think and do not let facts get in the way.
-
I see the smoking lobby is out in force! ::) The NHS is still strapped for cash even if tobacco taxes are making a contribution. Smokers still have to be treated and therefore others who have illnesses, through no fault of their own, are having to wait in the ever increasing queues for attention. There is no excuse for poisoning yourself with tobacco, anymore than there is any excuse for people to drink too much alcohol, use illegal drugs, or become dangerously overweight through overeating.
-
I see the smoking lobby is out in force! ::) The NHS is still strapped for cash even if tobacco taxes are making a contribution. Smokers still have to be treated and therefore others who have illnesses, through no fault of their own, are having to wait in the ever increasing queues for attention. There is no excuse for poisoning yourself with tobacco, anymore than there is any excuse for people to drink too much alcohol, use illegal drugs, or become dangerously overweight through overeating.
I'm not a member of a smoking lobby, Where is the evidence for your assertion that the duty doesn't cover costs?
-
I'm not a member of a smoking lobby, Where is the evidence for your assertion that the duty doesn't cover costs?
The NHS is still strapped for cash so tobacco taxes aren't covering the cost of every patient's treatment.
-
There is no excuse for poisoning yourself with tobacco, anymore than there is any excuse for people to drink too much alcohol, use illegal drugs, or become dangerously overweight through overeating.
You do not like smoking, you do not like drinking, you do not like pubs, you do not like music. You don't even seem to like chocolate.
So what, please tell me, having spent a lifetime of grumbling, and lecturing, and abstinence, will be the reward for being the least damaged corpse in the morgue?
-
You do not like smoking, you do not like drinking, you do not like pubs, you do not like music. You don't even seem to like chocolate.
So what, please tell me, having spent a lifetime of grumbling, and lecturing, and abstinence, will be the reward for being the least damaged corpse in the morgue?
Coffee spurt! ;D ;D
-
You do not like smoking, you do not like drinking, you do not like pubs, you do not like music. You don't even seem to like chocolate.
So what, please tell me, having spent a lifetime of grumbling, and lecturing, and abstinence, will be the reward for being the least damaged corpse in the morgue?
I do like chocolate and I like alcohol in strict moderation.
-
Quite a lot of pubs in Norfolk being converted to domestic houses, presumably, more money in it for developers. Don't think it's because of smoking - our nearest pub disappeared, quite sad, as it was several hundred years old, now we're left with more modern pubs, OK, but less atmosphere.
Round here a lot are owned by property companies. Eventually they sack the landlords and convert to housing. Much more money in it.
-
The NHS is still strapped for cash so tobacco taxes aren't covering the cost of every patient's treatment.
No one is stating anything about it covering the entirety of the NHS budget - rather what us being questioned is does the duty cover the issues caused by smoking. And I note you again have provided no evidence for your claim that it doesn't
-
No one is stating anything about it covering the entirety of the NHS budget - rather what us being questioned is does the duty cover the issues caused by smoking. And I note you again have provided no evidence for your claim that it doesn't
The Government takes money in taxes from tobacco, but does it put it all into the NHS, or does it go into the pot which covers all Government spending?
-
Round here a lot are owned by property companies. Eventually they sack the landlords and convert to housing. Much more money in it.
In the more suburban areas that is the case. In the more rural areas former pubs tend to be converted into showrooms, furniture showrooms being popular along the A21. Last time that I drove along the A21 there was not a real pub between The Rose and Crown at Green Street Green, and some gloomy looking place on the outskirts of Hastings.
-
The Government takes money in taxes from tobacco, but does it put it all into the NHS, or does it go into the pot which covers all Government spending?
It's essentially irrelevant since the cost to the govt comes out of the pot that covers all govt spending - so if the income is greater than the spend it increases the amount the govt has and is a net contributor. Any chance of providing evidence for your claim that it doesn't?
-
The NHS is still strapped for cash so tobacco taxes aren't covering the cost of every patient's treatment.
Again are you prepared to follow this argument to its natural conclusion. If its found, because smokers, drinkers, are less of drain on the NHS in their lifetimes compared to those that don't, will you then preach that we should all drink and smoke because its good for the NHS.
Don't get me wrong I agree we should discourage smoking and excess drinking however the benefits of doing so are good enough on their own. Making up silly arguments about the cost the NHS could lead you to make some pretty stupid decisions.
-
What about those who were quite happy to work in smoky environments? Remember the case some years ago where a group of gay men were prosecuted for assault following some kind of SM orgy, even though nobody had complained? In the newspapers, there were many letters expressing anger that such a prosecution had been brought because all those taking part had agreed to do so. Surely the barman happy to work in a smoky pub would be in much the same situation?
Irrelevant under workplace legislation and as I have said several times youi cannot have opt outs from it as then there will be employers taking advantage, pressurising employees and so on.
-
It's certainly true that pub numbers have declined according to statistics from the British Beer and Pub associate, but I wonder how they work this out. Once upon a time it was easy to tell between a pub, a restaurant and a cafe. Now, nothing like as easy.
So one of the best restaurants in my city (tables all booked 6 weeks in advance), also has a sizeable bar at the front. Some people treat it as a restaurant, some as a pub, just going there to drink. Also on my way to work through London I occasionally stop at a cafe, which is also a bike repair shop - but also sells beer and wine etc and is a convivial pub atmosphere in the evening.
And despite the reduction in numbers, in many ways we are currently in a golden era for pubs. Think about the 1970s, when CAMRA (headquarters just down the road from me) was set up. Sure there were loads of pubs but also a massive degree of homogeneity - most were run by a small number of breweries, sold a limited variety of poor quality mass produced beer and the range of other drinks was very limited. Today the choice is massive - there is the sell it cheap, every one is the same Weatherspoons - but also loads of one off pubs and bars selling a huge variety of often changing beer. Many, of course, are now microbreweries, so you can try beer actually made on the premises. The variety of other drinks has changed beyond recognition, with many having extensive lists of wine by the glass, plus others specialising in a bewildering array of whisky or gin.
-
Round here a lot are owned by property companies. Eventually they sack the landlords and convert to housing. Much more money in it.
The three pubs near me that have closed recently have all been knocked down and replaced with high density housing - one of which is planned to have a M&S food outlet on the ground floor.
In each case the pub was relatively modern, built at the same time as surrounding housing of largely 1950s vintage. Not sure if any of them is a great loss - I'd only been on one of them over decades. There was a bit of an outcry in each case, but I suspect this largely came people who'd probably never (or very, very rarely) been in them. Each was a classic example of a pub culture long gone.
-
I am very grateful the nearest pub is about a mile away, so we don't get any rowdy behaviour at chucking out time.
-
I am very grateful the nearest pub is about a mile away, so we don't get any rowdy behaviour at chucking out time.
You're a real bundle of fun, aren't you? The vast majority of pubs are well-run, and the vast majority of pubgoers well-behaved.
-
What I do find interesting reading this discussion is that the local pub-which most of our media has told us has been the much loved and quintessentially English main hub of local life social life for centuries-has in many places disappeared, yet nobody apart from me on this board seems to miss it. I can remember our local pub not that long ago being the place where the Anglican church community met after services, where the local amateur rep met after rehearsals, the local Parish councillors would sometimes hold impromptu surgeries, and the Landlord whipping up a darts team, a quiz team, and even a tug of war team. Now the pub has been demolished, for housing. It
will not be coming back.
-
Pubs obviously aren't as popular as they were, for whatever reason, I can think of quite a few in a ten mile radius of our neighbourhood, which are no longer used as such.
-
What I do find interesting reading this discussion is that the local pub-which most of our media has told us has been the much loved and quintessentially English main hub of local life social life for centuries-has in many places disappeared, yet nobody apart from me on this board seems to miss it.
I think you are misinterpreting what I and others are saying and also misunderstanding the 'local pub'. There are certainly places where there was only one pub and now there is none - that is a genuine loss.
But that isn't the situation in the vast majority of places, particularly our towns and cities. In this case there are perhaps 10 pubs when there used to be 12. That isn't a fundamental loss, but just a reduction in number - and given that there tends to be more diversity in provision now in comparison with the bog standard 'tied' pub of the 1970s there is arguably more choice not less.
And again in the vast majority of places, the 'local pub' isn't necessarily the one nearest, but the one in the relatively local vicinity that you like the most. In fact throughout my life, living in a whole range of places and with long periods where pub-going was a very regular activity, I never consider my nearest pub to be my 'local' - the one I tended to frequent most.
I can remember our local pub not that long ago being the place where the Anglican church community met after services, where the local amateur rep met after rehearsals, the local Parish councillors would sometimes hold impromptu surgeries, and the Landlord whipping up a darts team, a quiz team, and even a tug of war team. Now the pub has been demolished, for housing. It will not be coming back.
And except in the small number of cases where the only pub has gone that still goes on. I can think of plenty of pubs near me (I live in a small city) that are the go-to place after evening activities, that hold quiz teams (virtually all seem to) etc etc.
And yes the pub nearest me has also been demolished - but guess what I never went into it, even in the days when I'd probably frequent a pubs 3-4 times a week. It was never my 'local'.
-
We have good pub near us where people congregate to drink as they did in bygone years which also does food and has live music. Can't say I've been there for a while but used to go, my kids and sister's kids loved it and still do when they get together.