Smoking and the decline of the pub

[Maeght]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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?

[Maeght]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

And what about those who were happy to work in such an environment?

What about them?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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?

 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Nobody has to work on a building site.

And on all building sites responsible running is the law

[jeremyp]

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?

[Robbie]

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.

[Robbie]

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

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Maeght]

Nobody has to work on a building site.

You don't understand Health and Safety laws.

[Maeght]

As I understand it the smoking ban is a piece of workplace legislation. It was never enacted to protect customers.

Yes, that's correct.

[jeremyp]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

They were my friends (sort of).

Harman, and Blunkett were not.

This just makes your case look worse

[SteveH]

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).

[Maeght]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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