TelBoy

As for the MP question - did you actively write to your MP asking him to vote against the bill, for the reasons you've described? Probably not. But the anti-smoking lobby, with medical evidence on its side, has far more weight and has been gaining support within the population at large. MPs have a far better idea of public opinion than you or i - their jobs depend on it!!

OllyK

Pubs declare themselves smoking or non-smoking. You cannot smoke inside anywhere in a non-smoking pub, you can smoke anywhere in a smoking pub. This is pretty much how things were, the issue was that there weren't sufficient non-smoking pubs to keep the non-smokers happy. If they had made serious efforts to get the pubs to improve the split, there would have been a perfectly workable compromise.

OllyK

Yes - I'm still waiting for her response, along with 4 other issues, including a speed limit re-allocation, ID cards and alt med in the NHS. My MP is noticeably lax at actually responding to her constituents.

Medical evidence that is caveated as "estimates" and inconsistent in the estimates it provides.

While they may be aware of public opinion, it doesn't mean they actually follow it, they seem to go with what suits them and hope for apathy from the public and acceptance over time.

TheBigMan

Fair's fair - I would accept that. The only problem is that only a minimal amount of pubs would do this, of which they would be the Wetherpoons of this world.

Nice pubs can't have partitions etc - it just wouldn't work. Some country pubs only have a total bar/seating area of a few square feet - literally.

Maybe we should employ similar tactics to airports - stick smokers in little "smoking rooms" where they can all shudder and get excited about putting in their lungs what is primarily used for laying road surfaces.

TelBoy

Perhaps, yes. Or they could have retained the right of private members clubs to introduce whatever rules they saw fit - i think that would have been better and would have eliminated any anomolies within specific areas etc.

TheBigMan

The term pub means "public house".

Surely smoking is an extra curricular activity, and non smoking is not. More people do NOT smoke - so therefore in a public house, the public have a certain right to not breathe in smoke that has done the rounds in someones throat/gut/gob and gullet??

TheBigMan

Disagreed.


Agreed.

They are also activities that the majority of people also find objectionable - and in a democracy the majority rules. I do not like the fact we are under a Labour government - however we live in a democracy so I have no real cause for complaint.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

How do you work that out?

If the majority hadn't voted for him he would not have gotten in again.

Majority = more people
Minority = less people

so taking this simple sum into consideration and dividing it by the square root of who give a **** I would say that the majority voted him in. Democracy and governments are not usually (but I could be wrong) chosen on who gets the least amount of votes.

douglasb

I don't have the exact figures to hand, but it goes along these lines.

About 43% of those who voted in 2005 voted Labour. About 65% of those entitled to vote actually voted. Therefore only around 28% of the electorate voted Labour.

As 57% of those who voted did not vote Labour and as 72% of the entire electorate did not vote for Labour, then although Labour won more seats than any other party they can't claim that the majority of the electorate voted for them. So the majority didn't vote for him, but he got in again.

OllyK

Except of course, if it was truely public - kids would be allowed in ALL pubs. They aren't, so it is a semi-public house.

Yes and we have proposed the solution to that numerous times, one that was workable and would provide for both groups.

OllyK

If you agree it is YOUR personal list then they are not globally accepted, so globally they are not equivalent.

Please show me your poll results for each of the points you raised that polled everybody in the country. Ok silliness aside, you have a list of things you don't like and you "assume" the majority of people agree, they may, they may not. Some things are all ready legislated against or of, others are not.

And the majority does not rule in this country, otherwise we wouldn't pander to minorities where the government see fit and the NL government wouldn't be in power either as the majority did not vote for them.

TheBigMan

Yes, it is my list and I am assuming that the majority of people would feel the same. I believe it to be a safe assumption to make. However it is an ssumption never the less.

With regards to NL - "the" majority did not vote for them, however "a" majority did. As such, more voted for them than for other parties - therefore ; majority.

Dream Weaver

They should've just banned smoking outright, make it class A, that would've solved every single problem in this thread.

But of course, there's too much revenue to be generated from us "detestable" smokers.

Flatcapdriver

No **** sherlock. Of course there are restaurauteurs that produce high quality food with equally high standards of hygiene but there are also a hell of lot who don't, so unless you're one of them I don't see why you objected to my statement. Think burger bars, kebab shops and any number of restaurants featured on programmes such as the one Ramsey does- or is he just making that up?

You're second paragraph didn't make sense.

TheBigMan

Ladies...!!

Flatcapdriver

Make your mind up. Clearly, you want us to pander to the minority (smokers) so why should this be an issue?

All of this bull**** blaming Labour for the ban is stupid in the extreme given that it was a free vote against a bacdrop of a Europe wide move to ban smoking with Holland, Norway, Scotland, Ireland, Spain and Italy all making similar moves.

I can't see why people are whingeing about something that was going to happen anyway. Now that the legislation has been passed, do you seriously think anything is going to change? Nope. The brewing industry didn't want a partial ban and the people I deal with are certain that it will be beneficial to them in the long run, as marginal pubs will be closed down and the profitable ones will continue.

Get used to it and move on.

TheBigMan

People who are claiming state benefits should not be permitted to smoke.

That would be a good piece of law to introduce.

However, I'll sell my BAT shares and invest elsewhere first though.

rik1471

Flatcapdriver

I wouldn't sell your BAT shares just yet. They'll do very well out of the far/middle eastern markets they've developed.

wez_sti

I think this is excellent news. Cant come soon enough. No more coming home from work stinking like an ashtray...

and fingers crossed i wont die of cancer or some other passive smoking related disease from what i've put up with to date!

Paul3446

The local pub in the village where I live beanned smoking over a year ago. They had a phone vote which came out 75% in favour of a ban, it's great now, I can go in there at lunchtimes with the family and sit in the warm and have a lovely meal and drink. At the same time I can look out the window at the little shelter outside for smokers and see them all huddled together puffing like mad on their sad little ciggies looking really p*ssed off and sorry for themselves.

OllyK

This is what should have been going on for years - ask the bloody customers, let them decide.

Paul3446

Exactly, it's worked really well, I don't think trade has suffered.

22BUK

Why not? Because the government's scared to do it. They know, for example, that if they had a referendum on hanging, the majority would vote to bring it back.

When I lived in California, we had to vote on Propositions every election day. Get 10,000 people to sign up and your Proposition was on the next ballot paper.

For example:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/66/

scoobynutta555

Think the main point still in this whole thing is this is yet another example of something that is taken away from the majority by a 'moral majority'. The poem a few pages ago about 'then they came for me' is a very good example of the feeling that i am trying to convey.

Catering for the 'rights' of smokers (still 24% of the population) surely cannot be some sort of Herculean task.

Still the question is what next? It seems to be the norm now to ban things in some sort of do-gooder effort to cheat death in whatever form it manifests itself in. Speeding, smoking, eating burgers drinking etc etc. There are efforts in each of these areas for clamping down to 'protect' the general public.

If things continue where they are a lot of things that normal everyday people enjoy right now will be first frowned upon, then discouraged and eventually they will be banned outright. And it will all come under the banner of it's for the general good.

Reem after reem of proposed legislation is supposed to be for the public good, when in reality it's quite oppressive in its nature.

Dream Weaver

Thank god, someone else can see the "big picture", phew

I still dont believe only 24% of the population smokes, where do they get these figures from, do they ask EVERY person!!

Paul3446

I'm not in favour of things being banned in general, but smokers have to accept that when 75% of the population are in favour of a ban, this is simply democracy in action. If 75% wanted smoking to remain, then I would agree that it should.

This move should make going out a more pleasant experience for everyone, 30 years ago all offices had people smoking in them, imagine if you lit up in the office now. No-one would accept it, and it will be the same in pubs 30 years from now, we'll be sitting round saying can you believe that people used to smoke in pubs.

Dream Weaver

I still dont believe that only 25% of the country smoke, prove it

You're probably right on the last point though, I remember when people used to smoke going round Asda, and it seems odd they got away with it now.

OllyK

And for the 257th time, what was wrong with having entirely smoking and entirely non smoking pubs, free choice by all as to where they went? That's what living in a free country is about, providing choice. Banning anything that the majority don't like is draconian.

JamieMacdonald

The thing that some people can't seem to grasp is that smoking is different to almost all the other 'rights' mentioned.

You eating a burger DOES NOT directly affect people in your vicinity
You drinking a beer DOES NOT directly affect people in your vicinity
You smoking a cigarette DOES directly affect people in your vicinity

The answer = ban smoking in areas where people are likely to be exposed to concentrated levels of passive smoke.

The only alternative is for the people affected to put up with and suffer the effects of breathing other's smoke, or they do not go to such places - which would not be acceptable IMO.