Reply to: Smoking ban cop-out

[snaw]

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

Agree with total ban or no ban, but I'm struggling to agree with the rest. Non smoking pubs are pretty bloody rare, in London anyway, and landlords will go with the smoking option cause they know people will go along with it cause they always have.

If this arguement was flipped in on it's head and we'd been down the path of non smoking pubs for a few years I bet you'd find a very different story. IMO it's only because we're used to it we accept it (We being the non smokers). I see absolutely no difference from a non smoking office or public transport as I do a non smoking pub - what was once acceptable is now unacceptable and EXACTLY the same thing applies to pubs, once you've experienced the other side for a while.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[privateeye]

I smoke but do so only when not in the company of non-smokers, never in a restaurant, train, or even outside when there are people down wind. When I throw my butt away it is down a drain and not left in the street. I don't get abusive or violent. I never never smoke in anyone's house.

However, how many times do I take a different route to avoid drunks or the puke they leave on the pavement. I don't get caught short and expose myself to passers by of the shop doorway that I use instead. I never hit anyone when I've smoked more than normal or had a stronger brand.

Looking at it another way, it is often said that when invited to dinner you take the host a bottle of wine for example. When I am invited to dinner I make an effort to buy the hosts favourite tipple. When I return the favour and have guests to dinner - they know I don't drink so they bring themselves a bottle of wine. I do not though ban people from taking alcohol in my house but it does highlight the selfishness of drinkers.

Who is the most selfish the drinker or the smoker? Still wish I didn't smoke though but all this talk about forcing me to give up makes it harder to give up as I want to be seen doing it by my choice alone.

Anyway time for a last before I go home

[BoredBloke]

I used to smoke but do not agree with the ban.

Most surveys show that most people are for the ban and against smoking. If this is the case, then why is there not somebody opening smoke free pubs to cater for that particular market. Surely if the wish to drink in a smoke free environment was so strong then most pubs would be adopting a smoke free policy themselves without the government forcing them to do it.

[Denny]

Banning smoking in public places is as draconian and prejudicial as discriminating against ethnic minorities or other minority groups, which I've always consider to be wrong.

Smokers have become the new 'blacks' of the American Deep South prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

They had to give up their seats to whites on buses, we have to give up our seats to non-smokers or go to a 'smokers' allocated area we're allowed to smoke. What's the difference? There's very little difference between smokers being treated as second class citizens by the majority 'anti-smoking' fascists and asking the average BNP racist supporter what they think about ethnic minorities being allowed to live, work and prosper in this country. Most of them would probably agree that 'back to their own country' is a 'black or asylum seeker designated area.'

That's why non-smokers should already consider that the provisions that are in place are more than adequate as they are.

[BobTheCrate]

A generous compromise there Not So Wise.

Unfortunately I believe the non smoking fundamentalists will not be satisfied until smoking is banned everywhere, including the privacy of own home.

Before that though alcohol will also be targetted by those who disapprove of it.

Once smoking is banned from everywhere and the Treasury loses 3 times the annual NHS budget in tobacco tax revenues; let's all get ready for a nice big tax hike.

I wonder how much revenue alcohol brings into the Treasury each year ?

What the heck ... banning things is great ! It gives us intolerant zealots something respectable to hide that intolerance behind. Banning people from things is great and so is paying more and more taxes instead.