Smoking Bans
- Thread starter Euronymous
- Start date
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
I would like to draw your attention to the closure of pubs..But not through the no smoking ban but I believe its caused by peoples habits changing and the on cost too…. its now beyond the reach of the ordinary working man, and there’s been a huge rise in people buying all their drink from supermarkets etc and drinking at home, obviously more prevalent in the summer months but has been gauged as a norm through out the year (see below) nothing to do with smoking bans at all.....
'Twenty-six pubs a month' close
The Community Pubs Foundation will help people save locals
Around 26 pubs in the UK are being closed down each month, research by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) suggests.
It says many such pubs are turned into homes or demolished, and CAMRA has now launched the Community Pubs Foundation in an attempt to protect others.
It says the loss of a community pub can have a negative impact on the "local economy, community and tourism".
CAMRA surveyed local authorities to find out how many pubs were being demolished or converted.
Some were turned into restaurants, offices or shops.
More closures
CAMRA said that in 2000 about 20 pubs a month were being closed, but the situation had since worsened.
It said that on top of the pub closures, 438 pubs across England, Wales and Scotland remain closed and are facing an uncertain future.
'Twenty-six pubs a month' close
The Community Pubs Foundation will help people save locals
Around 26 pubs in the UK are being closed down each month, research by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) suggests.
It says many such pubs are turned into homes or demolished, and CAMRA has now launched the Community Pubs Foundation in an attempt to protect others.
It says the loss of a community pub can have a negative impact on the "local economy, community and tourism".
CAMRA surveyed local authorities to find out how many pubs were being demolished or converted.
Some were turned into restaurants, offices or shops.
More closures
CAMRA said that in 2000 about 20 pubs a month were being closed, but the situation had since worsened.
It said that on top of the pub closures, 438 pubs across England, Wales and Scotland remain closed and are facing an uncertain future.
G
Griffin
Guest
Perhaps one of the reasons more pubs are closing is because there are too many of them in the first place? Take Faringdon, where I live for instance. The town centre is tiny, yet packed into it there approximately ten pubs (and I think that's a conservative estimate) :blink: One has recently closed, about six months after it re-opened after refurbishment. I can hardly say I'm surprised 
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,042
As a former member of CAMRA, I can say that I'd take any figures they publish with a pint of salt.
The chances are that if you take any year out of the last 50 and calculate the number of pub closures you wouldn't see that much of a difference.
I stay at home to drink and watch footie etc but if I knew the local forbade smoking, I'd be first in line for a half on Christmas Day.
The chances are that if you take any year out of the last 50 and calculate the number of pub closures you wouldn't see that much of a difference.
I stay at home to drink and watch footie etc but if I knew the local forbade smoking, I'd be first in line for a half on Christmas Day.
Interesting, finding this thread up when this afternoon around two dozen workers in the call centre at the end of our road spilled out, fags already ablaze, to enjoy their weeds on the street corner. They leave behind butts, empty packets, and cardboard coffee cups, plus any sarnie wrappers they've taken out to nosh, too, so the ban on workplace smoking seems to lead to more public littering.
I asked one of the women if she was one of the outcasts, and why didn't their company provide a smokers' room? She asked if I was a smoker, I said no, but I'd nothing against people's right to smoke, if they wished. She was very pleased to hear it, and said she wished more attention was paid to things that really mattered, like alcohol-related assaults and murders, than smoking.
Really, I do feel that smokers should NOT be made to feel like jackals - if the Government was truly sincere in its concerns about health, it should ban cigarettes, full stop, and stop lining its pockets with ever-higher taxation from their use. They know full well that nicotine's highly addictive, yet they have no qualms from benefitting from its addicts. Then they take the high ground over a bit of ganja? <_< Blow it out your ass, Minister!
So, under my rule: all companies to provide air-conditioned smokers' rooms. Small companies, shops, etc., to provide a covered way outside ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY for the enjoyment of smokers and all employees who want to take a little fresh air. Marijuana legalized; cocaine legalized (bang go the scuzzy dealers and the allure of the forbidden for youngsters) - but bloody expensive; heroin traders to be shot on sight. Free fruit and veg for all poor-income families, no more than one car per household, free bicycles to all able-bodied persons, and cash bonus schemes to the obese to encourage them to get fit. (Me first on that one!)
I asked one of the women if she was one of the outcasts, and why didn't their company provide a smokers' room? She asked if I was a smoker, I said no, but I'd nothing against people's right to smoke, if they wished. She was very pleased to hear it, and said she wished more attention was paid to things that really mattered, like alcohol-related assaults and murders, than smoking.
Really, I do feel that smokers should NOT be made to feel like jackals - if the Government was truly sincere in its concerns about health, it should ban cigarettes, full stop, and stop lining its pockets with ever-higher taxation from their use. They know full well that nicotine's highly addictive, yet they have no qualms from benefitting from its addicts. Then they take the high ground over a bit of ganja? <_< Blow it out your ass, Minister!
So, under my rule: all companies to provide air-conditioned smokers' rooms. Small companies, shops, etc., to provide a covered way outside ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY for the enjoyment of smokers and all employees who want to take a little fresh air. Marijuana legalized; cocaine legalized (bang go the scuzzy dealers and the allure of the forbidden for youngsters) - but bloody expensive; heroin traders to be shot on sight. Free fruit and veg for all poor-income families, no more than one car per household, free bicycles to all able-bodied persons, and cash bonus schemes to the obese to encourage them to get fit. (Me first on that one!)
The town that I grew up in had a population of 1500 - 1800, and it had between 40-50 pubs. It was an old market town, and while the 'fair' that supported the number of pubs has long since ended, the pubs remained.
I dont have any stats icebreaker, but I disagree that the smoking ban has directly caused any closures. Drinking sales were declining long before the smoking ban was introduced, and the vintners association's reaction was to initially to raise prices further - a raise which the finally decided against.
Publicans thought they could screw the punters for what they wanted, but unfortunately to me they killed the goose that laid the golden egg. They are not in open competition, I know the vast number of pubs in my home town essentially price fix, and those who fail now get no sympathy for me.
The publicans thought that they could scupper the smoking ban and have failed, but at least every failed publican in Ireland has a scapegoat.
I dont have any stats icebreaker, but I disagree that the smoking ban has directly caused any closures. Drinking sales were declining long before the smoking ban was introduced, and the vintners association's reaction was to initially to raise prices further - a raise which the finally decided against.
Publicans thought they could screw the punters for what they wanted, but unfortunately to me they killed the goose that laid the golden egg. They are not in open competition, I know the vast number of pubs in my home town essentially price fix, and those who fail now get no sympathy for me.
The publicans thought that they could scupper the smoking ban and have failed, but at least every failed publican in Ireland has a scapegoat.
Honest Tom
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,272
The proposed ban in England is such that it will amount to smoking being banned in restuarants and food being banned in pubs.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Hear hear.
Where's the clapping emoticon?
Muttley
At the Start
Yeah, right - like as a charitable organisation we can afford to do that ..
And I have a very fundamental objection to the fact that the smokers all get their regular 10 minutes off to go and have a drag. I was under the misapprehension they were paid to come to work
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
Hear hear.
Where's the clapping emoticon? [/b][/quote]
monies must be found to treat the illnesses in relation to smoking so they tax the product heavily ... more people die through this self inflicted abuse than any other self abuse followed by drink next... the top two illnesses in relation to self abuse.................
A
Ardross
Guest
Can I say hear hear to Muttley . Smokers seem to work an hour less a day .
Merlin - that's not the point, is it? That is just hypocrisy on the part of the British Govt. No. 1 - other countries have very high levels of smoking-related diseases, but don't tax cigarettes anywhere near as high as the UK does; No.2 - as I said, IF THEY WERE SINCERE about stopping smoking-related ill health, they'd BAN the things. Taxing them higher and higher actually means that poorer people lose more of their money to their addiction, while richer people can continue to afford them, come what may. The only SINCERE action for a government to take is to ban all the imports or manufacture of tobacco in any form, fag papers, lighters, lighter fuel, ashtrays, etc. Now THAT is a 'smoking is bad for you' message, not raising taxes to infinity - of course, it would be very interesting to know HOW MUCH of the revenue raised from smoking taxation ACTUALLY went to assist patients with smoking-related illnesses, wouldn't it?
Ardross - oh, you've done a time and motion study, have you? How much time is 'lost' by non-smokers texting, phoning, e-mailing, eating crisps, making tea, 'popping out' to the shops, standing around in hallways gassing with their mates, etc.? Work studies undertaken BEFORE smokers were demonized and HAD to leave the premises in order to smoke, showed that exactly the same amount of hours were spent by smokers and non-smokers in non-work activities daily. The 'loss' in working time now is due to the sanctimonious anti-smoking rules forcing them outdoors to clutter up the streets and befoul the pavements, which now need more cleaning by Municipal cleaners (i.e. more time taken to clean outside offices and shops). For every action, there's a consequence, and Councils claiming they spend more time cleaning up after outdoor smokers is one, hence higher Council Taxes. D'oh!
Ardross - oh, you've done a time and motion study, have you? How much time is 'lost' by non-smokers texting, phoning, e-mailing, eating crisps, making tea, 'popping out' to the shops, standing around in hallways gassing with their mates, etc.? Work studies undertaken BEFORE smokers were demonized and HAD to leave the premises in order to smoke, showed that exactly the same amount of hours were spent by smokers and non-smokers in non-work activities daily. The 'loss' in working time now is due to the sanctimonious anti-smoking rules forcing them outdoors to clutter up the streets and befoul the pavements, which now need more cleaning by Municipal cleaners (i.e. more time taken to clean outside offices and shops). For every action, there's a consequence, and Councils claiming they spend more time cleaning up after outdoor smokers is one, hence higher Council Taxes. D'oh!
Muttley
At the Start
When it boils down to it, smokers are "demonized" because the effects of their habit - some just highly antisocial, others harmful - are forced upon anyone who happens to be in their vicinity the moment they light up.
Surely the results of this poll say all that there is to be said?
Surely the results of this poll say all that there is to be said?
A
Ardross
Guest
Nobody forces smokers to skive off work for a fag . Six 10 minute fag breaks a day is an hour . When I worked for a local authority that is exactly what the smokers did.
K by the way- are you suggesting that smokers never take part in any of the folowing activities as well as taking time off to smoke.
texting, phoning, e-mailing, eating crisps, making tea, 'popping out' to the shops, standing around in hallways gassing with their mates, etc.?
As for a complete ban - it would be great but cloug cuckoo land - this particular genie can never be put back in the bottle . Restricting smoking to private places just protects the rest of us from their habit .
K by the way- are you suggesting that smokers never take part in any of the folowing activities as well as taking time off to smoke.
texting, phoning, e-mailing, eating crisps, making tea, 'popping out' to the shops, standing around in hallways gassing with their mates, etc.?
As for a complete ban - it would be great but cloug cuckoo land - this particular genie can never be put back in the bottle . Restricting smoking to private places just protects the rest of us from their habit .
I have just voted NO.
I have never had a draw of cigarette in my life(approaching bus pass) but feel very strongly that it is a serious infingement of smokers' rights.
If you don't like a place because it is smoke- filled, do the obvious and stay out. I don't like what I believe goes on in massage parlours, brothels and slicitors' offices, so I don't go in, therefore avoiding the harm it might do me. I stay away from perfume counters in department stores because huge whiffs of those sprays cause me to cough and splutter. But I am not seeking a law to get rid of them and thus stop others doing what they want, or making a living.
The passive smoking arguments are a heap of shite as far as I am concerned. If some organisation would pay me decent money to sit in a betting shop choked with smoke for four hours a day I'd come out of retirement, as long as I could see the screens that is. Let's all have some freedom here, not just the clean lunged, freshly clothed, selfish sods among us.
I have never had a draw of cigarette in my life(approaching bus pass) but feel very strongly that it is a serious infingement of smokers' rights.
If you don't like a place because it is smoke- filled, do the obvious and stay out. I don't like what I believe goes on in massage parlours, brothels and slicitors' offices, so I don't go in, therefore avoiding the harm it might do me. I stay away from perfume counters in department stores because huge whiffs of those sprays cause me to cough and splutter. But I am not seeking a law to get rid of them and thus stop others doing what they want, or making a living.
The passive smoking arguments are a heap of shite as far as I am concerned. If some organisation would pay me decent money to sit in a betting shop choked with smoke for four hours a day I'd come out of retirement, as long as I could see the screens that is. Let's all have some freedom here, not just the clean lunged, freshly clothed, selfish sods among us.
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
Can someone please tell me how inhaling smoke, second hand or otherwise, can ever be as safe as inhaling clean air? If we're talking about "smoker's rights", what about people's rights to drink in a pub or place a bet in a bookies without inhaling smoke? The default is clean air - anything that causes that to change is forcing undesirable conditions on others, and nobody has the right to do that. I'm delighted to live in a country where the law has copped onto that.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I'm with you on this one, Gareth. Sorry DIVER, but I can't agree with you; as an asthmatic (albeit very mind asthma) I really struggle to breathe in a smoky atmosphere, it affects my breathing markedly. I only have very mild asthma too, I can't imagine how bad it muct be for more serious sufferers. Just the reaction alone that I have to cigarette smoke is enough for me to be totally confident that inhaling smoke is not healthy at all. Take a listen to smokers coughing their guts up permanently too & that's before you take into account all the toxic chemicals that are being ingested. Ok, it may be an infringement of smokers' rights to tell them they can't smoke in a given area but what about the infringement on non-smokers' rights - those who are forced to inhale poisonous chemicals merely because one person wants a cigarette? It's all very well saying if you don't like smoking, don't go to a smoky place - does that not infringe my rights to be able to go to a bar/pub/restaurant/bookmakers/countless other public places that are full of smoke because other people choose to smoke there? No-one is saying that smokers can't smoke, just that they don't want them poisoning the air of everbody else, too. As someone said earlier (Muttley I think) if one cigarette is lit, it affects everyone within the vicinity - somewhat selfish, don't you think?
Muttley
At the Start
I'm afraid I find the argument about massage parlours, brothels and solicitors a little irrelevant anyway - Diver, presumably, avoids those because he disagrees with their raisons d'être. The primary reason for going to a pub, a bar, a restaurant, a bookies, a racecourse, etc., etc., is not to smoke, it is to fulfill some other function.
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
hear hear!!!
Nobody forces anyone into a smoke filled bar or betting shop. Don't go in if you don't like the atmosphere. Find a bar or betting shop that is smoke free. There'll be plenty of room for you, I can assure you.
You will die from your worrying about passive smoking long before you die from it's physical effects. The stress you people give yourselves is far worse for you than anything you are likely to suffer from the subject of your concerns.
I don't go into brothels because I am allergic to rubber. I don't go into massage parlours because I have a small massage area and I happen to believe that no one in their right mind would voluntarily walk into a solicitors office. I have no hang ups at all about people's or places' raison d'etre (I struggle a bit with horse racing tipsters but that is a different subject although I think that inhaling them can be far more dangerous than the current subject).
Based on quite a small sample I have found that people who don't smoke are more likely to break wind in public places and I have learned to live with that. I will not be advocating a law to stop people breaking wind in lifts. It's part of life I'm afraid. So is passive smoking.
You will die from your worrying about passive smoking long before you die from it's physical effects. The stress you people give yourselves is far worse for you than anything you are likely to suffer from the subject of your concerns.
I don't go into brothels because I am allergic to rubber. I don't go into massage parlours because I have a small massage area and I happen to believe that no one in their right mind would voluntarily walk into a solicitors office. I have no hang ups at all about people's or places' raison d'etre (I struggle a bit with horse racing tipsters but that is a different subject although I think that inhaling them can be far more dangerous than the current subject).
Based on quite a small sample I have found that people who don't smoke are more likely to break wind in public places and I have learned to live with that. I will not be advocating a law to stop people breaking wind in lifts. It's part of life I'm afraid. So is passive smoking.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Can't say I agree with you DIVER, but there you go!! Incidentally - is there such a thing as a smoke-free bookies?! :brows: I've worked in plenty in my time as manager/relief manager & I haven't located one yet! :lol: I did piss off a hell of a lot of my punters though by putting up a sign banning them from smoking at the counter/coming up to the counter with a cigarette - I damn well enforced it too. They weren't overly happy when I refused to take a bet from them if they were smoking; it was quite amusing really as they thought I was a wet-behind-the-ears little girlie manager whom they could walk all over - boy, did they get a big shock...
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
You know, I really don't care about the passive smoking debate. What I do care about is having to put up with the smell of smoke, the taste of it, the irritation it causes my airwaves and the odour it leaves on my clothes. The idea that you only have a right to object to something if it might kill you is ridiculous.
Maybe I should pop into your local bookies whilst you're in there, piss up against the wall, and then tell you it's just part of life and if you don't like it you can leave.
Maybe I should pop into your local bookies whilst you're in there, piss up against the wall, and then tell you it's just part of life and if you don't like it you can leave.