I think the point on "it will get more people in pubs" is nonsense. Most non-smoking non pub goers I've spoken to about it have said they couldn't care less about the smoking and won't suddenly go into a pub because it's not smokey. The smokers seem to be leaving though - if they can't smoke then stay at home where they can.
Not even going to start on where the governent are going to get the extra cash from the loss of taxes. More stealth ones I'd imagine.
The smoking ban
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
My possible actions are irrelevant, if you smoke,where else are you going to smoke?ifstar wrote:I don't think the majority of smokers will stop going to the pub though.xxxx wrote:it allows respondents to avoid the single consistent point I have been making, once again:
those most vulnerable are likeliest to suffer, those least vulnerable are the beneficiaries
(as the bbc article shows, I am not alone in thinking this)
Sorry I never answered this before, I thought I had mentioned that when I was talking about people smoking in front of the children but I must have forgotten to add it.
So if you were still a smoker and the pub was your "last refuge", when the ban came into place would you stop going to the pub altogether and just smoke in the house in front of your family?
Doesn't make it bad idea, I just couldn't have seen them doing it first.I have added numbers to your points to make it easier to talk aboutxxxx wrote: I'm sure this will be used in classrooms as the classic example of noolabour legislation. It has all the hallmarks:
1) Someone else did it first
2) It doesn't affect revenue
3) It picks on an already demonised minority
4) Its a hamfisted answer to an inconvenience, not a problem
5) It pretends to be about rights, when its really about preferences
6) It sweeps the actual problem out of view
1) Does this make it a bad idea? If it works elsewhere then why is this a bad thing?
Yes, over time it will taper off, why not let smoking in one public place taper off?2) I am sure that cigarette sales will drop - people are likely to smoke less, so tax received from the the sale of them will drop.
Why not introduce a proportion of licenses to a percentage around or below the rate of smoking?
Non smokers get the fresh air and smokers get somewhere to smoke. Lung cancer rates have been significantly dropping in Scotland as smoking dies out anyway
Why not give room to the minority who don't want this?3) Its what the majority want
Unless you were raised by wolves, you are aware of the benefits of non smoking. I have never suggested smoking in itself is good.Passive smoking's harm is unproven according to the most extensive study undertaken4) Yes smoking and smoking related diseases are just an inconvience
Whatever you might think, many people will smoke less or even stop completely. The following link provides some timelines of when the benefits of stopping smoking kick in
http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/benefits.htm
The following link has some information about the benefits of just reducing your intake
http://www.no-smoking.org/august01/08-22-01-1.html
here though that may well be disproven at some point.
The inconvenience is a smoky atmosphere, a partial ban as outlined above could solve this
That is part of it, I have to say, the party of freedom,choice and individual reponsibilty seems all too often to be the party of prohibition.
5) Not sure on this, surely it should the right of the majority of the poplulation to be able to go into a pub and enjoy a drink without being exposed to smoking? Or would you say that all non smokers know that pubs might have smoke in them, so just shouldn't go if they don't want exposed? If so then surely that is taking away their choice?
[/qoute]
I've nothing against the majority of pub goers being able to go to the majority of pubs and not encounter smoke, however people who smoke pay heavily (and regressively)for the privilege and I think there will be a hardcore for some time to come, so why not allow them some space?
Its the total ban that irks me, smokers won't stop until they want to, while the rest of us will benefit from their activity, which is reducing anyway.
6) How does it sweep the problem out of view? Do you mean because you assume more people will smoke at home? If so then the following link may be of interest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4672005.stm
A couple of snippits
The Royal College of Physicians reviewed research into passive smoking, and the impact of banning smoking in public places.
It found that bans encourage smokers to cut down, or quit completely - rather than to smoke more at home.
Professor John Britton, chair of the college's Tobacco Advisory Group, said: "The evidence shows that if you make public places smoke-free a lot of people who smoke quit and a lot of people who continue to smoke stop smoking at home.
"You become used to the idea that smoking is not normal and you don't do it in front of other people."Pal of Porty says it all, out of sight, out of mind. Though how this couldn't be acheived by a partial ban I don't know.If people want to smoke all over their family in their own house, then that is up to them. I am just absolutely delighted that in in a few weeks time, they won't be able to smoke all over me when I am in a public place. Cool
It ensures that where most smoking will be done is where it does most harm and removes it from where it does least.
People will not give up overnight, a hard core of smokers will remain. As the exterior of pubs will no doubt attest.
It sounds to me like your real objection is this part
I'm sure this will be used in classrooms as the classic example of noolabour legislation.
The power of smoking to really stir people's feelings is nothing new:
BB
"A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless."
~King James VI, A counterblast to tobacco, 1604
BB
All I really need is love, but a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt!
-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)
-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
...And he has never even been in the Ormelie!Bellybabe wrote:The power of smoking to really stir people's feelings is nothing new:
"A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black, stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless."
~King James VI, A counterblast to tobacco, 1604
BB
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Is it just tobacco that is covered by this legislation, or anything that you can set on fire or char?
What about incense - can I burn a joss stick? Can restaurants still have candles on their tables - what about the puff of smoke when you blow it out?
If I ask for my steak well done - am I endangering the cooks who have to inhale smoke from blackened meat?
If it's all about involuntary third-party inhalation of smoke in an enclosed space - what about a contraption involving tubes which meant that the smoking matter and exhaled smoke could be held out of doors, but you could still be in the pub?
What about incense - can I burn a joss stick? Can restaurants still have candles on their tables - what about the puff of smoke when you blow it out?
If I ask for my steak well done - am I endangering the cooks who have to inhale smoke from blackened meat?
If it's all about involuntary third-party inhalation of smoke in an enclosed space - what about a contraption involving tubes which meant that the smoking matter and exhaled smoke could be held out of doors, but you could still be in the pub?
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
That is a brilliant idea and I think it is called Ventilation. If many pubs had chosen to invest in proper systems before a ban was being considered then you never know - maybe the ban might not have attracted enough supporters!Dadaist wrote:....what about a contraption involving tubes which meant that the smoking matter and exhaled smoke could be held out of doors, but you could still be in the pub?
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Heh. I was thinking of something more Heath-Robinson!Pal of Porty wrote:That is a brilliant idea and I think it is called Ventilation. If many pubs had chosen to invest in proper systems before a ban was being considered then you never know - maybe the ban might not have attracted enough supporters!Dadaist wrote:....what about a contraption involving tubes which meant that the smoking matter and exhaled smoke could be held out of doors, but you could still be in the pub?
Each smoker could have their own personal chimney - they could hold the fag in the chimney, and exhale into it too. Easy. Or do something with long plastic tubes - which would eliminate the mess of ash as every smoker in the pub's tube would terminate outside in a weird grid-thing of various lengths of lit fag.
It could be somebody's job to make sure there was always a lit fag in the end of the tube (like the guy who comes round in arabic cafes with hot coals for your hookah). And you could play a joke on your friend by sticking your finger in the end of the hole.
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
I'm surrounded by folk, Homer includedecm wrote:Have 6 or 7 for me then, please, BC.bearcub wrote:I've got a works night out on Friday, and whether I want to or not....I'm buying a pack of fags and smoking the lot of them
I stopped 10 weeks ago.
Whilst it's been fairly easy for me, I do miss my lovely fags something awful.
who are using the ban as an excuse to suddenly take up smoking with a vengance! After the Portobelly Telly launch I couldn't believe how many folk were on the Marlboro lights...it was a touch and go moment 
Still, I've held out. Not a single puff. That's 11 weeks now for me ecm.
www.porty.org.uk
-
Jackson Priest
- Posts: 493
- Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 16:57
- Location: Marlborough Street
- Contact:
Marya wrote: Still, I've held out. Not a single puff. That's 11 weeks now for me ecm.
Well done, you.
Must be extra tricky if Homer is still puffing away.
I miss my fags so much, especially after my tea. And when I have a drink. Or a coffee. Or when I get up in the morning. Or when I leave work.
Lovely fags.
Well done you even more. I know you really loved your ciggies. I only miss them when I have a drink, which as you know is pretty rareecm wrote:Marya wrote: Still, I've held out. Not a single puff. That's 11 weeks now for me ecm.
Well done, you.
Must be extra tricky if Homer is still puffing away.
I miss my fags so much, especially after my tea. And when I have a drink. Or a coffee. Or when I get up in the morning. Or when I leave work.
Lovely fags.
. Well, certainly not first thing in the morning anyway! How's your other half doing? Being as supportive as Homer I take it?
www.porty.org.uk
-
Jackson Priest
- Posts: 493
- Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 16:57
- Location: Marlborough Street
- Contact:
