Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm

Total smoking ban in all pubs and private clubs across England*, to come into force in the summer of next year. Sorry smoking dudes, but this is the result I was hoping for.





* Please note: England. Due to devo-"confuse the **** out of everyone"-lution, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will have to sort it out themselves.

Re: Get in my son
 

Why would you want this to happen at private clubs too? Spite?

Obviously I'm against the ban.

Re: Get in my son
 

Well, Rileys (the Pool and Snooker place) falls under this category, and is often one of the worst places round here for being a smokey hellhole. Not anymore!

Re: Get in my son
 

There`s a flat mate of mine here who works in a casino. She hates the smoke, but the casino in question is a private members club. So the smoking goes on. She is disappointed to say the least.

Re: Get in my son
 

Yay, more narrow self-absorbed tripe from people who dont know/care about anything political that doesnt affect them directly!

"Hey I hope they pass a law saying that all blacks should be killed because a black guy lives next door to me and I dont like him :mad:"

Re: Get in my son
 

Is it a total smoking ban? (including private clubs) If so forget my last post.

Re: Get in my son
 

Black guys living next door to me don't piss me off, make my clothes stink, and (debatably) pose a risk to my health. I mentioned Rileys as I am in there at least 10 hours a week, so to me it's as important as having it banned in pubs.

For non-smokers, smoking is one of the most annoying and intrusive aspects of going for a night out. Why should I come home smelling like a tarpit because some people like to shorten their lives?

Re: Get in my son
 

A friend of mine doesn't like dealing with people who have consumed alcohol. It's a major dislike of his. So he avoids going to pubs / clubs or other places which sell alcohol. Pretty easy really.

Re: Get in my son
 

I didn't know you had a son.

Re: Get in my son
 

This is a typical argument of smokers, however as usual it does not address the issue while attempting to distract attention elsewhere. The issue is that the actions of 26% of the population* have a lasting and lingering effect on the other 74%, who mainly at the very least wish they would take their filthy habit outside. Like it or not, majority tends to rule in a democracy, so in this case you're pretty much ****ed in terms of how many people are likely to agree with this line of reasoning. Fine contest the statute, fine write to your MP. The best you could hope for - although highly unlikely - is a public vote, in which case you'd lose anyway.

Drunk people frequently unpleasant. However, they're not still sat on your chair in your bedroom being unpleasant the next morning.


* According to Bupa. Read the paragraph titled "Improvement in people's lifestyles."

Re: Get in my son
 

I'm not a smoker and never have been. I doubt Nod is either.

In fact, I despise the smell of smoke and how your clothes stink of it the next day after clubbing (and I go out pretty much every weekend). But as I've said before, I hate the foul stench of tyranny a whole lot more. :(

Re: Get in my son
 

Could it be you're being sliiiiiiightly sensationalist? Also, please note the use of the third person in my previous post. At no point did I imply that you were a smoker, or that references to smokers were aimed at you in particular.

So far as I'm concerned this is in the public good. Anyone who goes into a smokey pub or club comes out stinking, and again debatably, with a small but cumulative effect on their health.

You can stretch the metaphor as far as you like, but this does not really apply to coming in contact with a drunk person now does it. You can't really argue it for actually drinking either. Yes drinking affects your health. It most certainly does not do likewise for the guy sat next to you, his mate at the end of the bar, or his next door neighbour sat at the other side of the room.
Last I checked, it didn't leave them all smelling either.

Re: Get in my son
 

When they announced this on C4 news (live!) then they then went into a pub on a working class estate to get the views of people there. The people they spoke to looked morose tbh, the publican said that he thought he would go out of business because everyone there smoked and would just drink at home. The vice president of a nearby members club said that they would continue smoking anyway, both looked very very pissed off at the government.

You can harp on about "health" all you like, but this is nothing more than an assault on working class values by a tyrannical Government who would rather people do exactly what they want them to all the time.

Re: Get in my son
 

Not really, since that isn't the sense I am using the term.Of course not, but I fear you have missed my point. I did not mean to imply that being exposed to alcohol and tobacco was the same but that you had a choice not to go to places where people smoked if you so wished - just like my friend. I have no problem with individual establishments banning smoking of course (that's up to them) but I dislike clubs, even private clubs being completed dictated to on this issue.

Re: Get in my son
 

Again, I'm forced to disagree.
It's fairly easy to find somewhere to have a drink where alcohol is not served. Conversely, it's not at all easy to find a pub to go to where people don't smoke. Weatherspoons is the one exception so far, but at the moment that's just their major buildings in big cities, which is no help to me in Loughborough.

The fact is that smoking is a problem caused by the minority, negatively affecting the majority. As I previously mentioned, simplistically democracy is majority rule. It's not like this sneaked in by one vote or something. In case you didn't read the article, the "all pubs" provision passed by a 328 margin, and the "private clubs" provision by a margin of 200. The BBC poll on that exact same page has 80% in support, 11% in support of a partial ban, and 9% for no change. That's from over 13,000 responses.

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in your argument, I'm just saying you're hopelessly outnumbered. Given the levels of agreement within the house and of public support, I fail to see how this can be classed as the march of tyranny in ANY sense of the word.

Re: Get in my son
 

I was more concerned with the open invitation to arse-**** him.

Re: Get in my son
 

I was going to adopt this but then I thought against it and realised it would make me more of a anti-social outcast.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

In California, it is illegal to smoke in any public building. Not only that but it is illegal to smoke within 20 feet of the entrance to any public building.

I don't smoke. I don't like to be around smoke. But, sometimes I think that things get carried a little far.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Just for kicks: now with poll!!

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

On the far side of the world (New Zealand) our glorious chief walla decided to enact this very same law.

Every pub owner the media talked to predicted utter ruin. Pubs would close across the country, people would go mad, fire death and famine would spread. People might get wet while smoking outside in the rain! - they cried. The end was nigh.

A year later and patronage is much the same as it was before. People smoke outside when they must; complaining all the while. Very few if any pubs went out of business. After all, why would they? The air is much cleaner, the bars more pleasant - people stay longer and visit more often because of this.

The impact on peoples liberty I can understand. But the impact on pub/bar owners back pockets I cannot understand.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

This is a bad thing.

Oh, and there has been no causal link (or any link) proved between passive smoking and increased lung cancer rates.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

And in other news there is no actual evidence that car crashes can be bad for your health. This and more made up shite at 11.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

I don't smoke and I'm against it, and I'm getting pretty ****ing sick of explaining why to my non-smoking friends up here. Still, Scotland's kicks off in a month and a week, I'll let you all know how we get on.

Re: Get in my son
 

Is it? My friend certainly doesn't really go to most social gatherings. He can get a drink at a newsagents or Starbucks, but not many other places. I've not encountered many sit down restaurants where alcohol is not served at all - doesn't Nando even sell beer for instance? Obviously you could live your life with only going to McDonalds, but likewise you could live your life without going to a pub.

But all of this is not really related to the issue of private clubs.
The oppression of the minority by the majority is tyranny to my mind. Similarly, if there was some law passed against homosexuality (say) I wouldn't care if 1% supported it or 99% - it'd still be wrong to my mind. (Before you respond, I am not saying that the two situations would be directly comparable, just that the majority supporting something does not make it right).

If there is a strong majority for smoke free pubs etc then I would imagine over time a larger number of pubs would open which had such policies. It's kind of like loud music. Some people like it, and I'd prefer if they had the opportunity of going to clubs where loud music is played (even if it damages the health of everyone there). The people who don't like loud music shouldn't go to clubs where they will hear loud music.

I'm outnumbered on a lot of the views I have btw. It doesn't bother me particularly.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Pubs and clubs are still doing fine in Ireland, noone really seemed to mind going outside for a fag.

I really hate smelling of smoke after going for a pint, or a coffee, or some food etc where someone is smoking. I smell, my clothes smell, my hair smells its horrible.

It's hardly an attack on smokers' civil liberties asking them to step outside while they do something that they enjoy/can't stop doing but affects others enjoyment.
They might be able to meet new people out there, get a bit of camaraderie going.

Re: Get in my son
 

Tyranny of the majority :eng101:

Re: Get in my son
 

The crux of the argument, I thought, was that employees of such establishments have to endure the smoke and have little choice in the matter.
Protecting public health will always be a goal of government and this is just one way to try and ensure that.
The smoking ban has been here in Ireland for nearly two years and nothing has really changed, smokers still smoke (albiet in designated smoking areas away or outside the establishment), people still frequent pubs, clubs, resteraunts and other workplaces.

You really notice the difference after a night out (if you are a non smoker), your clothes do not stink (this really hits you the first time), your throat is fine and you had just as good a time.

This argument that "RAAR If I want to inhale burning cancerous chemical laden leaves and blow that smoke at you all ****ing night, I ****ing WILL, why? CAUSE IT'S MY RIGHT" is just a load of shite.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Non-discredited source for the passive smoking thing please.

This makes no sense. Grammatical or otherwise.

Re: Get in my son
 

They* have to endure drunks, stress and unsociable working hours too, hey I bet they* never saw any of those coming when they* accepted the job.

*By which I of course mean 'we'

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Grammaticaly fixed when re-read. And that is esentially the argument put forward. Anti-Smoking ban people claim it's the right to smoke whenever and wherever they want.
Irregardless of anyone else around them.

10 sources given there for starters, if you wish to go through each one and discredit it,then fine.
Because clearly the US National Research Council, the 1986 Report of the US Surgeon General, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer all have serious flaws in their decades of published research.
Pssh...I mean, c'mon. It's not like any of those are even remotely credible.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Ignoring that the peoplea arguing against it in this thread ALL DON'T SMOKE! Obviously selfishness must be the reason to want to allow others to do something that we don't want to do or find distasteful!

Righty ho, seems in order (although I must admit that I'm not well versed in the field). Doesn't change the matter at hand though.

Re: Get in my son
 

I think it was Jenny that used to argue here that alcohol should be banned altogether, on the grounds that she didnt like drunk people talking to her. I dont see why your argument is any less silly or self-absorbed. Its like when you ask 5 year old kids what theyd do if they were made king of the world, and they say things like "free sweets for everyone!" or "I'd ban homework!".

On a sidenote, there are far more annoying things than smokers when youre out drinking, and stupid people is one of them. Yet I dont think there should be a law passed banning stupid people from going to pubs.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

to put it succinctly: someone else drinking doesnt damage my health, someone else smoking does.


there is no such thing as passive drinking.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Loud music can damage your ears therefore rock concerts should be illegal.

Whats that you say? Noone is making you go to rock concerts if you dont want to? Well holy shit!

Re: Get in my son
 

Again this comes down to one main fundamental problem in this debate. The legislation is not being introduced to impinge on civil liberties or because smokers 'annoy' other people. It's being introduced on the basis of public health concerns.

Arguments for and against peoples right to smoke are missing the point.

If you were to say alcohol should be banned because it poses a health risk, then it could be a good example for this debate.
Saying that alcohol or stupid people should be banned because they are annoying is not a valid part of this argument as it has nothing to do with the reasons for the ban in the first place.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

[shotdowninflames] hold on, if i go to a pub i got for a drink, not to sit and passively smoke.... [shotdowninflames]

Re: Get in my son
 

You're just the strawman king tonight, aren't you? I don't think anyone suggested "Hey, lets introduce this to crush the spirit of the lower classes!"

Re: Get in my son
 

No it isnt.

No they arent

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

And other people go to the pub to smoke and drink, whats your point?

"I dont go to rock concerts to listen to loud music - I want it at a reasonable volume. Other people who want high volume rock music are violating my right to listen to quiet music and not have my ears damaged"

This is the exact same argument

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

firstly there are places to stand at gigs where the volume is quieter (IE further away from the speakers)
secondly please provide me with evidence that the volume at a rock concert can damage your hearing.

Re: Get in my son
 

So...


Are you just sitting there with your arms crossed scowling at the screen now?

Good use of the defence.

Anyway, trust me, everyone will be happier when it comes in. Non smokers wont stink of cigarettes and wont be able to complain if they do.
Smokers will still be able to smoke, just perhaps 10meters away from where they normally would.
Smokers will also get more action as a communal smoking area is now the #1 place people are hooking up here in Ireland it seems.
Tobacco giants will still rake in billions off death and ill health.
The government will have its way.
Kittens will frolick freely.
Birds will sing, bees will try to have sex with them.
And the sun will come out, tomorrow.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

the entire thrust of my post was: if you go to a ROCK (note, you were the person who specified rock) concert, then you can pretty much expect loud music, if you dont want loud music, go see kylie at wembley and sit at the very back.


i go to the pub and drink, if im a bit lucky, and depending on which pubs i go into, and where i sit, i can go out in my hometown and already not come across anyone who smokes, because i go out to drink, not smoke.
Curiously, i think that private clubs should have been allowed to keep smoking, because then it would be an option for people.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

I despise being around smokers on nights out and even with only one smoker in our group we always end up in smoking places (you can't keep leaving and entering a club so smoke when they charge to get in heh) and as much as I love this bill for what it will gain me it just feels wrong :/ Everywhere having a set aside room for smokers to go for a fag would be nice but probably unworkable for the majority of places.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

First off, I am a smoker and have been for sometime.

Although I agree with Ste that:
but I would like to point out that pubs, clubs, bars whatever were never forced to allow smoking. If the vast majority of people would prefer to go to non-smoking places, why is it that some of these places have not chosen to ban smoking on their premises as their policy?

As to the health issues, which do you think is worse, inhaling second hand smoke from a cigarette (where the smokers lungs have already acted as a highly effective filter) or from the exhaust of a car?
There are also other ways to tackle this problem. I have heard of a Canadian(?) tobacco company trying to making less harmful cigarettes by not adding so many chemicals to the tobacco.

I would also like to add that banning smoking will probably lead to more people quitting. Not a bad thing I hear you say, but consider the amount of tax that smokers pay then consider the state of the NHS and the value of a state pension (when you retire.)

I'm done, you may now rip me to shreds.

Re: Get in my son
 

If you make baseless claims/non sequiters at me then I'll make baseless claims/non sequiters back


Arent you a good liberal.

When you go to a pub you can pretty much expect smoke, if you dont want smoke then go to a non-smoking pub or drink in your house

Unless the government has started running nightclubs that I dont know about, all pubs/clubs are private.

Re: Get in my son
 

NOTE: i have already said, depending on a bit of luck when i go out i can avoid smokers completely, so once again, you have been [shotdowninflames]

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Rock concerts are not everywhere. Smoking in public places, especially SOCIAL public places, is. It is exceptionally hard to "choose not to go somewhere where people smoke for a pint" as that basicly rules out everywhere.

The metafor of a rock concert doesn't really work anyway, as everyone going to the rock concert likes what they're getting. Consider this a more sensible example:

Imagine 25% of people like a good loud rock concert.
Imagine 75% of people like a nice rendition of Beethoven.
Now imagine that, in order to please the 25% minority, every classical music concert has a 30 minute rock concert intermission in the middle, while there is no requirement for a 30 minute classical music intermission at rock concerts.
Does this seem slightly unfair and one sided?

Welcome to the resentment most non-smokers feel for smokers.


I realise you are probably trolling, but at least try and come up with a resonable argument first.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Should the state be allowed to dictate to people what they can and cannot allow on their own property. Please tick box:

Yes [ ]
No [ ]





PS If I was a publican I'd ask everyone who comes to my pub whether or not they were a smoker. If they said yes, let them in but no smoking, if they say no accuse them of being drunk and chuck them out. That way everyone loses.

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

Re: Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")
 

That way you probably get a lawsuit for descrimination (there's always someone willing to try).