Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs
#181
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
#182
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
#183
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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!!
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.
#184
Originally Posted by Dream Weaver
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.
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.
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.
#185
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#186
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??
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??
#187
Originally Posted by OllyK
Wrong on so many levels.
Originally Posted by OllyK
....the only thing they ALL have in common is they are activities that you find objectionable.
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.
#188
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
Originally Posted by richieh
as the majority of the population didnt vote in Tiny B.liar
richie
richie
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.
#189
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: use the Marauder's Map to find out.
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by douglasb; 16 February 2006 at 11:53 AM.
#190
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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??
#191
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
#192
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
#193
Scooby Regular
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.
But of course, there's too much revenue to be generated from us "detestable" smokers.
#194
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
You're second paragraph didn't make sense.
#196
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OllyK
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.
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.
#197
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.
That would be a good piece of law to introduce.
However, I'll sell my BAT shares and invest elsewhere first though.
Last edited by TheBigMan; 16 February 2006 at 01:00 PM.
#199
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
That would be a good piece of law to introduce.
However, I'll sell my BAT shares and invest elsewhere first though.
#200
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: All over...so who needs a car!
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
and fingers crossed i wont die of cancer or some other passive smoking related disease from what i've put up with to date!
#201
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.
#202
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
#204
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Which is precisely what Parliament is designed to do. You can't have a referendum on every single piece of legislation.
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/
#205
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#206
Scooby Regular
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!!
I still dont believe only 24% of the population smokes, where do they get these figures from, do they ask EVERY person!!
#207
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.
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.
#208
Scooby Regular
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.
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.
#209
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#210
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bish,Bash,Bosham!
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.