OllyK

Except of course that former choice has now been banned, so no choice anymore.

TelBoy

LOL UB . Mate there were some Tories who voted for this too you know.

OllyK

Happy to string them up as well

Wonder what the percentages for and against on a per party basis were?

Dream Weaver

Plenty of people in here seem to be arguing for black and white, and saying pubs should either be smoking or non-smoking.

Why not compromise and have pubs completely separated by concrete walls if the owner/landlord so desired?

One half smoking, one half smoke free, separate rooms/bars etc, everyones happy - smokers, landlord, patrons that dont mither about smoke, the ciggie machine companies and so on.

Or is that way too much compromising for the selfish nature of humans at their best?

I honestly dont care about it, I already smoke outside when I can anyway, and I dont feel like my "civil liberties" are being erroded - but...I also dont like the agressive non/anti smokers and the "2 finger" brigade - they are being just as selfish as the smokers

Flatcapdriver

Whereas before, I didn't have a choice as to whether I could eat or drink in a smoke free environment. Now I do. That's a choice that was previously denied to me and if I really wanted to, in future I can go outside and join the smokers if I so wish.

OllyK

but now others don't have the choice to drink or eat in a smokey environment if they so wish. The compromise was to ensure that BOTH were catered for not either or.

Dream Weaver

Thats odd, plenty of smoke-free pubs/eateries where I live.

There often dead though

Flatcapdriver

Ah, I see. So now it's a case of ensuring the minority has the choice whilst the majority suffer? There is ample scope within this legislation for both camps to happily co-exist without either side suffering as a result - it both gives a choice whilst ensuring that that choice is not imposed on others which could be detrimental to their health. It's similar to the hunting ban in that it bans something without really banning it. In other words, it limits it's impact without making it impossible.

OllyK

Obviously not.

Since when was any pub banned from providing smoke free areas or even from being entirely non smoking if they wished? They weren't, there have always been smoke free pubs, the choice has always been there.

There was, there isn't now, unless you are suggesting people will still be able to smoke in pubs?

How can banning something, i.e. removing something (think subtraction in maths if you like) result in an increase in choices? It can't and it doesn't, bans only reduce choice.

Choice...imposed?? Now that's an oxymoron worth noting.

Unless you are suggesting the government have left loop holes in the legislation which means that people will continue to be able to smoke in pubs as they do now (expect maybe for needing to have a bird of prey with them) that statement is complete and utter tosh.

_RIP_

WFIW IMO OllyK and ScoobyNutta are the few people making sense in this circle jerk of a thread. The rest of you seem more concerned that your clothes will no longer smell rather than believe that publicans/bar staff will no longer die like flies from passive smoke. AFAIK Roy Castle is the only reported person to have died from passive smoking in pubs or clubs. Perhaps due to his fame he was the only case I have heard of. The rest of the SN rabble might well enlighten me as to who the hundreds if not thousands of people who have died pouring us all a pint over the last 100 years were.

TheBigMan

Smoking is no different to:

* Having a bonfire.

* Spitting chewing gum on the floor.

* Pissing up the wall.

* Swearing crudely and obtusely around others.

* Wanking on a strangers face.


The only difference is that "some one" at "some point" in our history decided that smoking around others is "ok" and the above was not.

If pissing up the wall was some sort of habit, and smoking was never allowed (and appeared in the list above in place of pissing) then some on here may argue that banning pissing up the wall affects our civil liberties....

Fact of the matter is smoking should NOT have been allowed in public places in the first place.

The fact we now have evidence to support that it is unhealthy (as well as the torrid stench) and also have a clear majority in favour of a ban means that this ban is simply righting a previous wrong in a fair and democratic manner.

We should not care whether it has been allowed in public places for 10 days or 10'000 years - at what point does it suddenly become acceptable?? The answer is quite simply never. This ban is long overdue.

Any decision has it's winners and losers so to speak - however many smokers, as proven on here, respect the decision and in some cases where common sense really does prevail - they welcome it.

_RIP_

What a silly post.

Luan Pra bang

What on earth do you base that on you ignorant c*unt. Have you ever considerd that people in the restaurant business can be passionate about delivering high quality food and hygene standards. It certainly isn't the money that keeps people in the catering industry.

To answer the other point hygiene regulations protect peoples health stopping me from having a smoking area does not protect anyones health it just means smokers get cold. You cannot smoke in either restaurant anyway so non-smokers don't have a problem. At what point can the government stop interfearing with peoples lives. No more fatty foods its bad for you no more spirits its bad for you etc. Non smokers have a simple choice don't go to smokey places.

TheBigMan

We aim to cater for all audiences.

speye91

feel sorry for all the publicans who may be forced to close down as all there regular drinkers buy a few tinnies from the offy and take them home so they can enjoy a smoke and a drink in there own home.... that will be banned next

_RIP_

lol

_RIP_

<Basil Fawlty mode>

</Basil Fawlty mode>

OllyK

Wrong on so many levels, the only thing they ALL have in common is they are activities that you find objectionable.

r32

Good news.......................

lozgti

Democracy.About 300 people have decided what to do on behalf of 60 million people.

TelBoy

Which is precisely what Parliament is designed to do. You can't have a referendum on every single piece of legislation. The majority of the public wanted a ban, the MPs made it happen.

OllyK

If you think that MPs make decisions based on what the majority of the people in their constituency want, then I think you're mistaken.

TelBoy

Well on this issue alone, i'm not. But we can all be sceptical about the system when it doesn't produce the results we'd desire...

richieh

mmm all this talk of majority this minority that.
as the majority of the population didnt vote in Tiny B.liar does this mean he's gonna go because he's obviously not what the majority wants?
richie

TelBoy

That's the Constitution the UK has though. Join the LibDems if you want a realistic shot at bringing in proportional representation. But this was a full (and un-whipped) Parliamentary vote - nothing to do with what electoral majority the Labour Party don't have....

OllyK

While you may be correct on this issue, it remains a guess based upon a few small sample polls and a rather vocal non-smoking lobby.

While we live in a democracy, we are also supposed to be living in a free and non-oppressive society. Current government policy seems to be counter to this in banning things rather than seeking compromise solutions and introducing more and more increasingly restrictive legislation, giving them and the police more powers while controlling those that they are supposed to serve. I don't have an axe to grind on a personal level on the smoking issue as it doesn't affect me, it just concerns me that people seem overjoyed that something else we used to be able to choose to do has been removed from us as an option. I fear that should the government move on to something that may have a negative impact on the majority, they will take prvious apathy as carte blanche to forge on ahead.

Dream Weaver

You obviously didnt read my post then.

Instead of banging on about wanking on peoples faces, why can you not see that a compromise between everyone would've sorted this out?

Would you object to a pub with 2 completely separate areas and 2 separate bars - 1 room smoking with vent systems, 1 smoke free?

You probably would object, cos its the awkward swines like your good self that just want everything their own way, a compromise will not suit. As a smoker I HAVE compromised for years now - I smoke outdoors wherever possible, and not in eateries, and try to respect those that choose not to smoke.

Simple smoking rooms/bars in pubs would've made everyone happy and there wouldn't be these issues, but that would be way too much work for the gov't to do

TelBoy

Simply disagree. If it didn't affect other people's health, it would have had a VERY hard time being banned, quite simply. Why you continue to refuse to accept this i've no idea, but whatever. The fact that the majority of the population agreed with the vote is a bonus, but i think the time would have come when it would have been made law anyway, unilaterally.

Dream Weaver

So you disagree that a pub with separate smoking room would've been an option?

We have no hope then.

As for the "population", the vote was made by individual MP's, I dont remember our MP asking what we thought??

TelBoy

Personally, as i said myself yesterday, if it could be guaranteed that i wouldn't be affected by smoke, it would be hard to oppose this, but once you give an inch, a mile would be taken. It would simply be unenforcable and a meaningless law. If you're going to ban smoking, you have to do it everywhere within the confines of a public place i'm afraid.