Smoking ban cop-out

[BobTheCrate]

Most if not all such surveys are unreliable; if not rigged. Whether they be commissioned by the Tobacco industry or by the anti smoking fundamentalists.

As to the voluntary method. You make the most compelling point Tony.

[snaw]

Most if not all such surveys are unreliable; if not rigged. Whether they be commissioned by the Tobacco industry or by the anti smoking fundamentalists.

As to the voluntary method. You make the most compelling point Tony.

It's not really about freedom of choice - it's a basic health issue for people who work in bars. They're in no position to make demands on their employers that pubs be smoke free and the employers won't do anything which they percieve might damage their profits.

Personally to me it's a simply question of status quo, right now the smokers say if you don't like it go to a smoke free pub (Like they're everywhere). I know, from personal experience, that after a year of a ban that status quo changes and people quite simply won't accept smoking pubs as the norm, especially given how easy it is for a smoker to nip outside for a quick ciggy - you get over it fast.

In exactly the same way in which people now would consider the idea of smoking offices again as being ludicrous - it's all a question of perception.

[vista]

Smoking Ban

What a complete and utter cop-out. I'm the proverbial ex-smoker and gotta say this pisses me off big-time, a real chance to do something positive for once and yet again NL comes up with some half-arsed measure. Absolute wnakers.

HTF they can ban it in food pubs but not in non food ones is beyond me. It's pretty logical - it's being banned on the basis of it being unhealthy for staff and other customers so htw do they suppose the health risks are less in non-food pubs?!?!?!

Quit your illiberal ranting and support a complete ban on sales of tobacco. You non smokers like to bleat about health and the other PC cards but I haven't heard you or any other PC bigots actively encourage the ban in sales of cigarettes or the doubling of your tax to pay for it, you lot just want your cake and you want to eat. If you are going to benefit from the ongoing sales of fags you just have to lump the status quo - breathe deeply we could all get lucky.

[stackpole]

Does this Bill mean that a smoker cannot go out for a meal and smoke?

Where's the logic in banning it in foody pubs but not others?

[BoredBloke]

"It's not really about freedom of choice - it's a basic health issue for people who work in bars. They're in no position to make demands on their employers that pubs be smoke free and the employers won't do anything which they percieve might damage their profits."

Firstly, a high proportion of bar staff smoke. For them this is not an issue. Obvioulsy there is a large number who do not smoke. What I was saying before was, if there was a real demand for non smoking bars then the market would supply them without the need for government action. These bars would obviously need bar staff.

[darmstadt]

They're trying to do the similar here in Germany but the Government is not to keen as they know whats going to happen. They will have to raise taxes because the revenue from tobacco is so great they can't do without it. So when your tax bill goes up don't shout out because you asked for it.

[Denny]

Does this Bill mean that a smoker cannot go out for a meal and smoke?

Where's the logic in banning it in foody pubs but not others?

It's not clear what consistutes 'food' either.

Is it a bag of crisps, peanuts or pork scratchings, a sandwich, or is it only hot cooked food? Why should eating a bag of crisps be an acceptable gastonomic experience with smokers in close proximity, but not shepherds pie and peas? Does it only apply to pubs that have a segregated restaurant area which will be non-smoking but have a bar removed from that area for smokers, as many do. Or does it apply only to bars that serve hot food at the bar to take to free for all drinking only and food eating tables?

Some pubs will interpret these rules differently. What about cafes and bars that have two tiers but still serve hot cooked meals. If one tier is for non-smokers already - the restaurant area and the other tier for non-smokers where drinking and crisps are served but where segregation is clear and distinct between both sets of parties, same goes for coffee shops like Costa Coffee in my area who have floor segregations between the two, why should these establishments bar it throughout because there are a few muffins and cookies for sale?

I suspect that those pubs that currently do serve hot food (if that is the definition of 'food') will stop doing so if they think they will lose too many smoking customers.

This whole piece of legislation is a piece of crap. They should either bar it altogether and risk alienating smoking customers, or else just leave the market to decide what should be non-smoking and smoking establishments. As I said before, there is plenty of choice and most non-smokers or anti-smokers in large cities and towns have many places they can go if they want to avoid smoke, therefore smoke is NOT imposed on them at all, as is suggested.

Furthermore, I don't buy this 'protection from passive smoking bulltulip either.' I suspect that most kids and vulnerable people exposed to smoke are mainly affected at home mainly not in the occasional restaraunt, pub and cafe trips.

There's plenty of scope for the market to keep everyone happy, so why not let individual proprietors decide for themselves about whether they want to make their establishments smoke free. Clearly there are not enough people who want to go the way of Ireland, that's why an outright ban was resisted.

[FrankScribe]

According to a member of my family who was a 'trainee manager' (aka dogsbody) for Bass. The margins on food are much higher than on alcoholic drinks so many licensees will opt to loos a few smokers who drink in exchange for non-smokers who eat - not sure what their position on people who drink soft drinks will be, the margin on 'premix' ie Syrup, water and CO2 is even better than on food.

[Denny]

According to a member of my family who was a 'trainee manager' (aka dogsbody) for Bass. The margins on food are much higher than on alcoholic drinks so many licensees will opt to loos a few smokers who drink in exchange for non-smokers who eat - not sure what their position on people who drink soft drinks will be, the margin on 'premix' ie Syrup, water and CO2 is even better than on food.

I thought margins on food were small compared with those on drinks. Isn't the price of a bottle of wine with a meal where most of the money is made per customer? Normally there's at least a 100% mark up on a bottle of wine.

[snaw]

Quit your illiberal ranting and support a complete ban on sales of tobacco. You non smokers like to bleat about health and the other PC cards but I haven't heard you or any other PC bigots actively encourage the ban in sales of cigarettes or the doubling of your tax to pay for it, you lot just want your cake and you want to eat. If you are going to benefit from the ongoing sales of fags you just have to lump the status quo - breathe deeply we could all get lucky.

Why would I want to do that - I've no problems with people doing whatever they want to themselves, it's only when it affects others it become an issue. And it's got feck all to do with being PC, but then your rant makes no sense anyway.