Smoking and the decline of the pub

[Aruntraveller]

I have to ask - have you ever seen anyone die of lung cancer?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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.

[floo]

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. 

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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!

[Maeght]

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?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

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?

[floo]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[wigginhall]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[SteveH]

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?

[floo]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[floo]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[jakswan]

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?

[jakswan]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[floo]

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.