Print Story If I said you had a beautiful body, would you ban smoking in my pubs?
Ranting
By priestess (Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:43:15 AM EST) priestess, rants, smoking, drinking, pubs, bloody-politicans (all tags)
I mean, I quit smoking the plan was never to smoke tobacco ever again. Not even in joints! It's still obvioulsy wrong though.

Will we be allowed to have an open fire? What if the logs we throw on it are made from tobacco plants? Can we burn insense? How about tobacco flavoured insense? Can I put nicotine in my pub-disco's smoke machine?



The big worry is that now the pubs will be smoke-free, they'll fill up with the kind of mealy-mouthed muslei-eating upper-middle-class helath-nuts that voted for this ban in the polls and the commons. The pub used to be a greatly needed respite from their false moralising and their tacit disapproval of anything that's DIFFERENT or doesn't make money for the fucking economy. It used to be an escape from their boring mindless group-think frightened cotton-budded worry-warting.

We'll have to think of some OTHER way to keep those preachy pedagogic patronising pinheads out of our space now.

Fucking politicans. They don't care about freedom AT ALL.

Screw 'em. I've a good mind to start smoking again.

< Why is it so hard for Symantec to do decent software? | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
If I said you had a beautiful body, would you ban smoking in my pubs? | 93 comments (93 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
I See Squat Parties Increasing by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:49:16 AM EST
In number. It's fucking ridiculous. Even if I gave up smoking, I'd let smokers hve a few places to relax in.

Indeed by priestess (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:53:29 AM EST
If they outlaw smoking then only outlaws will smoke.

Pre...........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Great plan. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:59:19 AM EST
Then you can lock them up, and they can smoke themselves to death away from the rest of us.

[ Parent ]
I hate that priggish wanker Blair so much by dmg (2.00 / 0) #91 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:10:39 PM EST
What a tosser. I wish he would just fuck off and leave the British people alone for 5 minutes. Why can't he butt out of our lives?

I am a non-smoker, but I plan to purchase 20 Marlboro tomorrow to protest this ludicrous infringement of my rights.

The cognitive dissonance must be huge from a party that enables 24-hour drug-taking (so long as alcohol is the drug in question) and downgrades the classification of a drug known to provoke schizophrenia in those with a pre-disposition. And on the other hand sort of bans fox-hunting.

How do they make these arbitary decisions about where to nanny us and where to leave us alone?

I despair. I need to go and live in the Netherlands again, its the only place I ever felt the government was sane and representative.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.

[ Parent ]
Maybe. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:49:21 AM EST
The only problem with smoking is that it affects the people near you. I think you have to have freedom from other people's actions in a "free society".

Bored with the debate by priestess (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:52:51 AM EST
Been over it too many times. They just voted to ban smoking in PRIVATE MEMBERS CLUBS though. If you don't want the smoke, stay out of the smoking clubs. You'd think that'd be easy enough.

But the ban isn't about protecting people from the tiny almost unmeasureable effects of second hand smoke, it's about public moralizing and improving the health of the nation whether they want it improved or not.

Pre...........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
I'm bored with the debate too. by Idempotent (3.00 / 1) #5 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:58:47 AM EST
Smokers in my experience tend to be wankers who will blow smoke in your face, then litter your garden with butts and wrappers on the way home. It's as if they know that everyone hates them, so why bother even trying to be considerate?

I can't see why this is an issue. Just ban smoking, in pubs, clubs, outdoors, anywhere except places you actually own, and make it a criminal act if someone else to breathes in your smoke while you are smoking.

Tough but fair, I hope you'll agree. Smokers are a minority, and we all know what we do to minorities these days. Except these ones actually deserve to be persecuted.

[ Parent ]
Do you drive a car? by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:11:54 AM EST
Eh?


[ Parent ]
Occasionally. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:40:01 AM EST
However, I do make sure that noone has their face in front of the exhaust pipe when I do. Also, I only drive in well ventilated areas.

[ Parent ]
Excellent. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #33 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:39:08 AM EST
So when I open the window of my house to let a little fresh air in, and get your exhaust fumes instead, what would you recommend I do to escape them?

You, at least, can choose not to go to the pub, or go to a non smoking one.


[ Parent ]
So? by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #45 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:36:25 AM EST
Availability of transport offers benefits to everyone. What benefit does your smoking give me?

So the choice not to breathe in carcinogens is to never set foot in a pub? Are you really suggesting that because you smoke, I should have less of a social life?

[ Parent ]
Uhm by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #49 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:21:20 AM EST
You driving your car to pick up a pint of milk benefits me how exactly?

You can choose to go to a non-smoking pub.  Remind me again how I can escape your car fumes?

And seeing as ~290,000 people were killed or injured in road accidents in 2003
of which ~4100 were childrenBaby murderer.

Oh and for the record I've been a non-smoker for ~10 months.  Perhaps you should have checked that before assuming my habits and getting on your high horse?


[ Parent ]
Please be providing figures on availability of by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #53 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:04:44 AM EST
non-smoking pubs. Wow! So many to choose from.

Also, I note that whenever I'm out and about in the fresh air, some bastard lights up next to me and I get a face full of smoke. How am I supposed to avoid that?

And the fact that you don't smoke is irrelevant to the argument.

[ Parent ]
There aren't nearly enough non-smoking pubs by priestess (2.00 / 0) #54 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:12:25 AM EST
I can agree with that. I think that, since about a quarter of Londoners smoke, about a quarter of pubs should be smoking pubs. They're not, and I agree that a change to the law could and should fix that.

A change in the law like making a licence for a smoking pub a hundred times more expensive than a licence for a non-smoking pub would probably do it. Better yet, an auction. The state can decide what fraction of pubs should be smoking-allowed (say, 10%) and then auctions off those licences and spends the venue generated on iron lungs and compensation pay for the staff in those pubs.

A total ban on smoking pubs, just to get there to be more non-smoking pubs is just crazy.

Pre.......
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Market forces let non-smokers down. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #55 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:16:34 AM EST
So intervention is needed.

Your suggestion is sensible. However, I am totally for the new proposals as it annoys smokers, and quite frankly, it's sweet revenge after all these years of them annoying me.

[ Parent ]
Try the franchise restaurants in the US by cam (2.00 / 0) #65 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:56:58 AM EST
even in the US South they have smoking and non-smoking parts. The fluting is good enough that the smoking areas dont spread their smoke. The market has supplied a good solution.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Don't change the argument by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:17:07 AM EST
There are non smoking pubs available.  You keep ducking the question; namely, by which right do you have to pollute my airspace? 

You are intolerant of smokers polluting yours (even though you have the option of avoiding it); how may I avoid your exhaust fumes?

And the fact that I'm a non smoker is relevant to the argument when you assumed I am a smoker.


[ Parent ]
OK, let's get back to the point then. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #58 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:21:57 AM EST
If you want to avoid exhaust fumes, please move to the middle of nowhere. I believe there are a number of properties available with no roads for significant distances, and with enough wind to fully ventilate them.

This may inconvenience you a little, but hey, you have the option. So why on earth are you getting all arsey about me driving occasionally?

Please substitute "smokers" for "you" in previous messages. I think they will then be to your liking.

[ Parent ]
Actually, that won't. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #59 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:29:45 AM EST
Seeing as particulates from exhaust fumes have a habit of ending up involved in the food chain.  And in acid rain, soil pollutants etc.

Which is all a side issue, really.  Some people have to tolerate your behaviour, which annoys them, so surely you can tolerate other people's behaviour which annoys you?


[ Parent ]
Smokers leave their pollution out there too. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #60 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:38:22 AM EST
And because they smoke in the streets, I can't opt out.

Transport has a benefit, smoking doesn't. Everything is shades of grey, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.

[ Parent ]
Tolerance, tolerance tolerance. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #64 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:50:04 AM EST
I'm sure the world could do with a bit more of that these days, eh?


[ Parent ]
Interesting idea by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #67 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:09:21 AM EST
Tolerating cancer and various respiratory illnesses, or tolerating being excluded from a large part of the UK culture?

[ Parent ]
Hush by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #73 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:22:25 AM EST
Tolerating other people.  It's not like inhaling and ingesting exhaust gasses from cars is the healthy choice, now is it?


[ Parent ]
Yes, by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #76 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:47:05 AM EST
but the vast majority of people benefit from transport, and therefore get some return on breathing the fumes.

I get no return from breathing a smokers fumes. And there is the difference.

[ Parent ]
I don't see that by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #80 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:08:27 AM EST
How exactly do I benefit from you spewing exhaust fumes all over the place?

The usurious tax on ciggies keeps your tax bill down  by about 5%, BTW.


[ Parent ]
Er? by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #82 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:50:08 AM EST
You're moving an argument about behaviour in general to the behaviour of an individual.

You benefit from transport being available in general. So it's a bit off to complain about people driving around.

However, it's hard to say that non-smokers benefit from smokers smoking. Whatever the tax benefits, what exactly are the expenses of smoking? Apparently the cost of specific illness to the NHS is less, but this doesn't count all the possible effects.

Also, smokers slack off regularly during the day, meaning non-smokers do more work.

[ Parent ]
Uhhh by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #89 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:10:09 AM EST
You were the one spouting off about individual smokers breathing "toxic" fumes on you.

How, exactly, do I benefit from you driving your car to pick up a pint of milk?

That tax benefit was calculated taking into account published figures from the NHS on the costs of caring for those with smoking related illnesses.

Smokers do not slack off during the day.  Blue collar workers are trammelled in the time they are permitted to take a smoke break (and typically the non-smokers have a bit of a sit down).  White collar workers are not so limited about when they can go for a ciggie, but there is a side benefit of knowledge transfer.  Google "water cooler information transfer training".


[ Parent ]
Really? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #86 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 10:32:38 AM EST
So 15% of a smoker's tax bill is from smoking? (Assuming smokers earn the same amount, and pay similar taxes on other things, of course, neither of which sound quite correct, but anyway.)
Interesting fact.

[ Parent ]
No. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #88 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:02:37 AM EST
If everyone in the UK stopped smoking tomorrow, then the tax revenue would be off by x.

Subtract the cost of the NHS care to those with smoking related illnesses from x to give y.

Divide y by the number of people paying tax on earnings, to get the total increase in tax required on the average wage in the UK.

I did do the sums using data from the various government websites about a year ago and I have no interest in doing them again.  If you're that bored you can search for my comment posted on this site.

Fact is, taxation on smoking is a net good for the Treasury.


[ Parent ]
Actually, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #50 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:34:28 AM EST
most of the disbenefits of car use accrue to the population as a whole, whereas nearly all of the benefits accrue to the user (and occasionally users) of the car.

I ought to declare here that I drive a stupidly long way in my day to day life (400 miles/week ish), because there's no convenient way for me to avoid doing so.

I'm regretting the decision I made over the weekend to drive down to see friends in Kings Cross, even though my fuel costs were 30% less than the train ticket. I just felt the whole thing was an unnecessary strain on me, the space in London, the amount of free time I had, lots of things.

[ Parent ]
There's a slight difference. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #52 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:03:00 AM EST
I do not, on principle, do regular journeys. It is those journeys which tend to be unnecessary[1] and it is the exceptional ones which give the benefit of having a car.

[1] Assumes good public transport. But there's a reason why it's crap, and it's because people like you refuse to use it.

[ Parent ]
I would not, on principle, do regular journeys. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #61 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:38:56 AM EST
If I were in a position where I could take up a job where I lived, move to where my job is, or indeed, if I lived in the next city along where there is an Intercity railway service, I would not be commuting by car.

But I did try all of that, and it didn't work. I consider the fact that I have to drive a lot by car unsatisfactory, and when I start attaining some of my life goals, that will undoubtedly be something I don't have to do. As it is, I hope to be healthy enough to sleep well and get up early and do half my journeys by train and bike. The catch is that it's 50 minutes each on the train and on the bike vs. 50 minutes in the car.

And if you read the thing about last weekend's trip to London properly, you'd have noticed how I pointed out I regretted it. The main reason I chose to use the car for that journey is because I'd had to get a lot of work done on it the day before(twice the purchase price, or the price of my workhouse bike) and had a full tank of fuel, so another £35 of out of pocket expenses was pushing my spending limits, irrational economic behaviour, I acknowledge, but I didn't think my head could persuade my heart that it was worth spending all that money on my car and then leaving it on the driveway. As with most of the city to city trips I do, I'd have caught the train otherwise.

Another factor exceptional to this weekend is that I'd had a crappy train journey on Friday, due to the fact that Virgin CrossCountry can't seem to keep its Voyagers running and the 30 year old train I was on was lacking in many features, such as self serve bike access, and a corridor that wasn't blocked by a buffet trolley.

So, no, I don't refuse to use public transport, I just occasionally choose not to use it. I'm sure that over the past year, I've spent a much greater proportion of my income on public transport than you have. Ditto private transport, though.

[ Parent ]
I wasn't having a go at you. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #68 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:10:24 AM EST
I was having a go at those doing the school run and "commuting" to work a couple of miles away.

[ Parent ]
How annoying. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #75 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:29:55 AM EST
I was feeling all self righteous now I'd got my rant out, and now you tell me it's unnecessary. :)

[ Parent ]
OK. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #77 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:47:35 AM EST
I take exception to your long commute because you smell. Happy now?

[ Parent ]
Excellent and accurate. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #81 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:15:04 AM EST
+++1. Excellent A*** Would be insulted by him again.

[ Parent ]
Unmeasureable? by hulver (3.00 / 1) #7 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:00:55 AM EST
Walk into a smokey pub. Have a drink.

Go home and put your clothes in a plastic bag.

Next day, open the bag and have a good sniff.

Now, if the smoke effects your clothes that much, what is it doing to your lungs?

OTOH, I don't agree with a complete ban. There has to be some choice involved.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
All laws are public moralizing (nt) by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 2) #12 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:41:44 AM EST


---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Terrible consequences by DullTrev (4.00 / 2) #9 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:19:34 AM EST

Ian Willmore, of Action on Smoking and Health, says the ban will "accelerate the trend towards more sit-down, family-oriented, food-oriented pubs". Auntie Beeb.

Awful. Truly awful.

Now, as an ex-smoker (four months tobacco free!) I have a lot of sympathy with smokers. Personally, I have fond memories of sitting with a pint and a cigarette, and think it is remarkably unfair to tell them they can no longer do this.

Equally, I think it is incredibly unfair that those pious pissants who say how terribly wrong it is for them to be exposed to any smoke are listened to. If they don't like the smoke, than go to a pub that has voluntarily gone non-smoking - vote with your feet, and stop fucking whinging.

However, I think it's a lot more unfair to tell the people who work in the bar they just have to put up with long term exposure to a substance medically proven to have serious negative effects on their health. And that is why, despite the reasons above, I find it hard to argue against the ban. It sucks, it's unfair, but, ultimately, it's a lot less unfair to the people who smoke than it is to the poor sods who have to work in it.

But I'm going to smoke a big fat cigar in my local the night before the ban comes into force.


--
DFJ?
There should be a better way by squigs (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:47:38 AM EST
I'm a non-smoker.  Hate smoke.  And I'm not totally happy with this.  I want a better compromise. 

Trouble is, there aren't any non smoking pubs.  The free market doesn't always supply what people want.  There's a lot more factors than that in a pub.  Going to one of the few non smoking pubs isn't any good if the prices are high , the beer's crap and they don't serve food.  Getting rid of smokers means losing half your customers.  Allowing smokers doesn't repel the non smokers nearly as much. 

I thoguht the no smoking where they serve food was a good idea.  No idea why they didn't go for that one.

[ Parent ]
serving food... by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:50:06 AM EST
... well, because it would mean that poor people who visited crappy pubs would still smoke, meaning that the will of the middle class wouldn't be imposed on them.

Also, it's rather arbitrary.

[ Parent ]
Oooh! Oooh! by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:51:38 AM EST
The Wetherspoons off Division Street in Sheffield is a non-smoking pub!  I have falsified your statement, and thus invalidated everything you've ever said.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
So's the Pheonix by hulver (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:58:44 AM EST
Just down the road from me.

Sheffield - The non-smoking pub capital of the north.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
Exactly! by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #43 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:29:18 AM EST

Good point, though ...


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Quite a few Wetherspoons do by DullTrev (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:59:50 AM EST

There's a few non-smoking pubs in Manchester, so they do exist. However, they tend to be modern, stylish, and utterly, utterly soulless.


--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]
I hate to say it by Dr Thrustgood (4.00 / 1) #24 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:15:37 AM EST
but yes, there are non-smoking pubs. That one around Blackfriars station, original victorian fittings, you know it, non-smoking when I last went there.

Surprisingly empty for a Thursday, I thought.



[ Parent ]
query by Merekat (4.00 / 2) #34 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:49:02 AM EST
Getting rid of smokers means losing half your customers has been proven untrue over here. Price changes have been demonstrated to have more of an impact than the smoking ban.

[ Parent ]
In *free competiion* it does by priestess (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:51:34 AM EST
If they can go next door where smoking is allowed, they'll do that. If ALL the pubs ban smoking at once so that the option of being a smoker in a pub isn't there then of course only a very few folks don't go to the pub at all.

Some, but very few.

Pre.......
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
choose your state by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #38 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:57:35 AM EST
Some but very few didn't go when there was smoke. Why is one better than the other?

They've banned smoking in pubs in Sweden too so the pubs have nice fleece blankets on the terraces for the winter.

[ Parent ]
I mean for voluntary non-smoking. by squigs (2.00 / 0) #37 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:55:40 AM EST
Go non smoking, and all the smokers go next door.  You might attract non-smokers from next door but for the ones who are neutral about smoking, you've got to be as good overall as well.  Smokers are likely to be more committed to going to a smoking pub than non smokers are. 

Okay.  I might be wrong.  Non smoking pubs seem to do pretty well really.

[ Parent ]
nyeh by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #39 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:00:47 AM EST
The publicans spend a year gnashing and wailing about how they'd be ruined! if the ban went ahead. Pubs are still fuller and more plentiful than they were in the mid 90s.

[ Parent ]
How well has it worked? by squigs (2.00 / 0) #40 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:05:08 AM EST
What's happened?  Has smoking stopped being a social thing, or do all the smokers nip round the back?

[ Parent ]
wierd thing by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #41 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:11:02 AM EST
This is not known for being a law-abiding nation but the ban in pubs appears to be more successful than the same ban applied to public transport. Most pubs provide an outdoor area with heating and seating. I suspect skanger pubs are probably full of smoke but they've never been places you can go without the appropriate dress code and the right accent so I don't know.

[ Parent ]
"ban is successful" by priestess (2.00 / 0) #44 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:32:08 AM EST
People keep saying that. Do they just mean that the law is enforeced, that people have indeed stopped smoking in pubs? Surely to be called a "success" a law designed to improve the health and satefy of pub workers would have to, you know, improve the health and safety of pub workers. Has it done so? Has anyone even measured that?

I'm certain that when people say the Ireland ban was a success they don't mean that it made for a wider variety of different pubs, that it improved the genetic variability of drinking establishments, that it made fun pubs more fun and sports pubs more sporty and whatnot.

I've also not seen a definative study on the profitibility of these pubs. The folks I know who work in the trade say the trade dropped by about 12%, but I can't see how they'd know better than anyone else and I've seen figures ranging from there to an INCREASE in trade of a few percent.

In summary. What does it mean for the ban t be a success exactly, and was that definition decided BEFORE the ban as you'd hope or afterwards and a heindsight justification?

Pre........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
success by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #46 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:47:29 AM EST
I don't speak for people. I speak for me and I'm referring to success as a willingness on the part of people to follow the rule without overt enforcement being required. Peculiarly, they do in pubs, they don't on buses. Why, when there was less outcry about the original ban on smoking on public transport and the deterrents are equivalent, is this the case? You even spend longer in a pub than on a bus!

[ Parent ]
Why by priestess (2.00 / 0) #48 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:08:42 AM EST
With busses, it's difficult to step outside for five minutes to have a cigarette I guess, certainly that's easier in pubs.

Pre...........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
It's amazing by gazbo (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:49:46 AM EST
People just assume that what they want is what everyone wants.  The guy who said that probably can't comprehend that people would go to a pub for any reason other than taking the wife and the kids out for a gammon and eggs on a bank holiday.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
The staff health & safety argument by priestess (4.00 / 1) #16 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:50:08 AM EST
is the only really valid one, certainly. I'd find it more valid and useful if the workers in a foundry, or a car-park, or a building-site were as comfortable and safe as pubworkers who's job is, frankly, remarkably danger free.

The proper solution to the problem is to have licences for smoking pubs and licences for non-smoking pubs and set the cost of the smoking-licence nice and high. Give the staff danger-money if they want it too. Make sure that the costs are so high that only about 33%-10% of pubs allow smoking.

Hey ho. I'm sure they'd vote to ban smoking in squat parties too if they could, luckily they can't.

Pre.......
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Exactly by Dr Thrustgood (4.00 / 2) #25 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:17:29 AM EST
I'd even go fully-out right-wing on this one and say fuck the bar workers, it's not like there are a lack of jobs in that industry, if you work in a pub that allows smoking, sign the fucking form saying you don't mind the smoke and get on with it.

/rant over



[ Parent ]
The health and safety argument does stack up. by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #28 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:25:07 AM EST
Health and safety is about reducing the risk to as low as is possible while still allowing the job to get done.

There are plenty of real dangers to working in pubs (broken glass, assault, cleaning chemicals, etc), and one of them is exposure to smoke, which is damaging to health in an insidious way, in that it increases risks of asthma, colds, bronchitis and other things that have a serious effect, as well as the stochastic risk of causing cancer.

[ Parent ]
But is the job being done? by priestess (4.00 / 2) #30 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:30:25 AM EST
Serving Wench in a smoking pub is a job, clearly if you stop the pub being a smoking pub then the job is no longer being done. It's a different job.

"But we don't NEED smoking pubs" some will no doubt say. Um. Maybe YOU don't, clearly some people do though. That's why we have 'em.

Maybe we should look at the H&S of Forumula One Racing drivers becasue the job of driving a car around a track really fast is way dangerous. We could limit the speed to 10mph and it'd be a much safer job. Who could complain?

Pre..........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Heh by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:25:05 AM EST
...mealy-mouthed muslei-eating upper-middle-class helath-nuts...tacit disapproval of anything that's DIFFERENT...

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
Re: Your tags by hulver (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:01:31 AM EST
They need to be comma separated.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock
Really? by priestess (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:03:29 AM EST
Well that's pretty non-standard init?

Pre........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Is it? by hulver (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:07:02 AM EST
I've not really used any sites that use tags before.

This way you can include " " in your tags.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
Why would one want to do that? by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:14:54 AM EST

And what would it signify?


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Why wouldn't you want to? by hulver (4.00 / 1) #27 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:23:57 AM EST
This way you have the choice.

You could put a tag in like "Aston Villa, Manchester City"
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
D'oh by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #47 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:05:34 AM EST

fucksticks.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
I can think of reasons: by gazbo (4.00 / 1) #29 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:26:02 AM EST
Tags: "Girls aloud, bukkake, gobbling"

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
I guess by priestess (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:18:56 AM EST
del.icio.us uses spaces to seperate tags, it's pretty much all I've used.

I think that spaces in tags are probably as evil as spaces in filenames, but then sometimes I put spaces in filenames these days so maybe they're not that evil.

Pre........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Could it work this way... by lb008d (2.00 / 0) #70 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:18:13 AM EST
If no commas are present, split on spaces, else split on commas?

[ Parent ]
I was thnking of that by hulver (2.00 / 0) #92 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:24:18 PM EST
It would require me to do some work though :)
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock
[ Parent ]
Given that there was no whip, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:31:46 AM EST
it could be said that it was the most representative form of politics that there is.

You did contact your MP and tell them you felt strongly about the issue, didn't you?

I didn't feel the need myself, because I thought there was a pretty strong chance I'd get what I want from it: a good likelihood I can go out somewhere without too much smoke.

I imagine people will end up happy enough with it once they're used to it. It works in Ireland.

My MP by priestess (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:38:48 AM EST
My MP voted against the complete ban, and indeed aganst the ban for pubs with food. I hadn't written to her, but I guess I didn't need to.

Course, I also didn't vore for her and she's in favour of ID cards and she's generally a Labour Lacky.

Pre.............
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Ya know what's funny? by blixco (4.00 / 3) #36 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:54:20 AM EST
The one paper that all second-hand smoke zealots use to pass this legistlation?  It was disproven.  Later studies?  Couldn't find proof that second-hand smoke caused cancer.

It's just "common sense," but it's not science.

But hey, zealots are zealots.  They do what they do.  Here in the US, we have whole cities you can't smoke in.  Because it's the government's job to tell us (and y'all) how to live!
---------------------------------
I am ten ninjas. Ten ninjas with root access. - mrgoat

Congratulations by gpig (4.00 / 1) #42 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 04:12:07 AM EST
This is the first comment in this diary which says something I haven't heard before. Have you got any references for that? I'm generally for the ban, for health reasons, so it would make a difference to the way I think about it.

Mind you, there's still a health argument even if passive smoking has no effect. Can't remember the exact numbers but quite a few people quit smoking (> 0.5% of total population?) when the ban was introduced in Ireland. If that's correct (and they stay quit) it justifies the ban on lives saved without needing to argue about passive smoking.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Yep. by blixco (4.00 / 2) #62 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:43:59 AM EST
I'm all for the sort of shockwave effect it has on people quitting.  I quit 8 months ago, predicated by the ban here.

However, my references may be easily disproven....as i look into it, it turns out that the EPA's initial claims that 3000+ people a year die from secondhand smoke was 1) badly researched bu 2) politically charged.  All the arguments against it are 1) political and 2) based on symantics.

Hrm.  Here's the EPA wrapup, and if you reda through it, you find some leaps of logic.  For instance, their research doesn't take any other environmental effects into account.  Also, it does not take any dietary concerns into account, and seems to conflict on hereditary sensitivities (genetic predisposition).  There's a whole lot of suspect science in their science.

The speculation is that this report was done poorly to avoid a conflict of interest with the tobacco lobbyists.  Basically, the "actual" study was much more complete and much better researched, but it was supressed by the tobacco companies.

That's an assertion I've now seen in more than a few places.

So: going by the EPA study alone, the risks of secondhand smoke can't really be proved....the science is all sorts of wrong.  Again, it may be "common sense," because smoke isn't supposed ot be breathed.  Because people who live in smoke-filled rooms tend to die from lung-related problems.  Because it just makes fucking sense.

Bu the laws are being based on, and reference, a flawed set of studies.

It's an area rife with politics, the usual conspiracies, and (strangely) Penn and Teller seem to be involved.

In short: we need better science to answer this question.  But in the meantime, the bans haven't impacted business, and they're just an annoyance for people who smoke.  Hey, when I smoked?  I always said it wasn't the smoking I was addicted to, it was the standing around outside in bad weather.
---------------------------------
I am ten ninjas. Ten ninjas with root access. - mrgoat

[ Parent ]
Forgot by blixco (4.00 / 2) #63 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:46:30 AM EST
the typical rebuttal to the EPA report.

There's a whole section of the new EPA wrapup that addresses these items, though.
---------------------------------
I am ten ninjas. Ten ninjas with root access. - mrgoat

[ Parent ]
Whole *states*, even! by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 1) #51 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 05:46:22 AM EST

Oh, Cullifornia, how I miss thee...

The whole smoking thing reminds me of my Secret Libertarian Bent. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why a law is needed to tell public venue owners what they can and cannot allow on their property. Fortunately, I live in Tobacco Country now, where smoking is mandatory.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
Bastards. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #69 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:12:15 AM EST
I agree with you completely. The laws about not murdering people on my property are completely unreasonable.

[ Parent ]
In Texas by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #71 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:18:44 AM EST

You can. Provided they're not supposed to be there.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
That's still an unreasonable law. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #72 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:21:33 AM EST
Once they're on your property, surely you have ever right to murder them, however they got there? After all, what right has the government got to say what you can do there?

When are you moving to Texas?

[ Parent ]
It's too damned hot down there for me by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #74 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:29:38 AM EST

I'll stay here and murder my neighbors the old-fashioned way; by exhaling cigarette smoke in pubs.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
But that's not your private property. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #78 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:49:04 AM EST
Surely that's wrong, wouldn't the landlord have to be murdering you to keep you happy about rights of the landowner?

And what if the pub was leased?

[ Parent ]
I'm not afraid to die by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #79 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:55:48 AM EST

If the pub is leased, the landlord surely has the right to not sign a contract with the pub-tenant if he doesn't approve of what the pub-tenant allows and does not allow on said premises.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
Glad that's sorted then. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #83 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:51:02 AM EST
Let's get with the slaughter!


[ Parent ]
I'm starting with this baby lamb! by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #84 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:08:48 AM EST

Mmmmmm, delicious slaughter...


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
as a non smoker I say by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:18:29 AM EST
ha ha!

Maybe the benefit will be that smoking becomes a cool, rebellious act again. As of right now it just gives you a buzz and kills you. Ha ha!

Noam Chomsky: Well, forget about the hippies and so on and so forth.

Ob:Young Ones by cam (4.00 / 3) #66 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:03:20 AM EST
How come I can get married, have sex with wimmen, join the army and kill people - but I cant smoke in pubs?

I am against these types of bans, especially in private establishments. In public offices I can understand it, but not private ones.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Damn you! by blixco (4.00 / 1) #85 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:47:29 AM EST
Now I must
a) Go home and watch The Young Ones on VHS (because I don't yet own it on DVD) and
b) Work on my Neil (Neal?)voice for tomorrow's meeting.  "Hello, kitchen.  Hello."
---------------------------------
I am ten ninjas. Ten ninjas with root access. - mrgoat
[ Parent ]
Its Risotto Vyv by cam (4.00 / 1) #87 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 10:44:50 AM EST
We updated to DVD last year for them.



NEIL: [entering with two plates, which he hands to Mike and Vyv] Right, now here it is, now eat it up quickly, okay?

MIKE: What's this?

NEIL: Uh...It's risotto, Mike.

VYVYAN: It's snow, isn't it, Neil.

NEIL: No, it's probably just gone cold, Vyv.

VYVYAN: Neil, this is snow!

NEIL: No, it's risotto, Vyv!

VYVYAN: Look, I know snow when I see it! I should do, it's all I've had to eat for the past three days.

NEIL: Well, it's very nourishing, Vyvyan.

VYVYAN: Snow, snow, bloody snow! I hate the bloody sight of it!

MIKE: [eating greedily] Don't you want yours, then?

VYVYAN: Ah-ha! No, I didn't say that, did I, Mike?

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
ObRepost by Rogerborg (4.00 / 2) #90 Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 11:46:44 AM EST
The 8 (eight) bars and 6 (six) restaurants in the Palace of Westminster are of course exempt from this legislation, so perhaps becoming an MP, a lobbyist or a really high class hooker would be the best way for you to spark one up legally.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
Well, it is England after all by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #93 Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 11:32:25 AM EST
hmm, it's been a while since the plebes have burned the ruling class at the stake, hasn't it?

Noam Chomsky: Well, forget about the hippies and so on and so forth.

[ Parent ]
If I said you had a beautiful body, would you ban smoking in my pubs? | 93 comments (93 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback