Bring back...

[Sput]

I feel left out. What does it mean?

It's when the new social lepers (the smokers) will chat to each other outside when enjoying a perfectly legal substance which props up the NHS and stops everyone else paying an extra 3p in income tax.

You might be right, but then again smoking-induced diseases will cost at least some of that money to treat, and if it wasn't fags it'd be something else taxed. I'd split it between fags and fats personally.

Maybe people care more about war and taxes because something important's at stake. You can't really argue that standing outside to set fire to something is in the same league. At any rate there are plenty of people that would rather you do it there, like me!

I am glad you are so cavaliar with my rights and the rights of the venue owners.

That statement has nothing to do with rights, it's about personal priorities. Anyone can get angry about war and tax because they affect everyone in a much more significant way than, if you happen to fall in that section of the population that (i) smokes and (ii) in public places indoors that (iii) is actually *angry* about moving to a different part while they do it then you're probably in a minority. Be honest, would you have taken time out of your day to travel down to London and protest about it?

This is one of 3000+ new laws passed under ZaNu Labour - in other words, the government no longer trust us to do 3000 things we could do legally and in peace in 1997.

Depends if every single one of those laws was prohibiting something, I suppose...

If I do something you don't like, do I have the right to insist you are thrown out of the venue for it even if it is a legal activity? Watch out for when they come after something you enjoy doing.

It's incredible to think that in 2008, I am no longer entitled to enjoy a cigarette with my pint in the warmth of a pub, which leads onto...

You can turn that around, since before 2007 I was not entitled to enjoy clean air with my pint in the pub. It's an awfully subjective point to try and argue with. The things I like doing (besides farting) don't impact on anyone else either.

Bah, all that would happen is smokers would stay in there the whole night, and all their friends would stick with them, leaving the smoke-free areas empty and rendering the whole thing pointless. That's not because non-smokers like being in smoke-filled rooms (if they're bothered at all) but because they want to stick together in the easiest way.

...your and other smoking/smoker-haters' desire to control my life and movements as well as the 10-12 million other of us.

So what if we want to have a cigarette in the warmth of a sealed-off, ventilated smoking area? Further more, it is the height of control freakery to deny non-smokers the right to be in that area with their smoking friends!!! Where do you get off, Sputty?

First up, I think calling me a hater's a bit much! It's just that, given the choice between a room with smoky air and a room with clean air, I'd prefer clean air. I didn't campaign for a smoking ban but I prefer what it's created. Yes, you can argue places now smell bad for other reasons, but that's shitty pubs for you and at least those smells don't carry a risk of disease.

Secondly, I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm trying to offer an explanation as to WHY these sorts of rooms would be pointless, not my opinions on how they should work.

Pubs will close in their thousands because of the ban. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. All because of a smell and a few million control freaks.
This is Britain, 2008. I'm off out of here as soon as possible.

People keep saying that, but 7 months in I've not seen anything shutting down round here. I've seen a lot more fenced off outdoor areas though. The question to my mind is: Do you have ANYTHING to substantiate that claim? I don't have anything here to dispute it but it sounds like fearmongering to me. Especially since in all likelihood it'll be smaller pubs that close, and by your maths there you're saying each one has tens of employees.

Don't leave though, I think I'm in like with you!

[Pete]

I think I'm in like with you!

like or metrolove?

[noelfirl]

Pubs will close in their thousands because of the ban.

That's the mantra we were given over here as well (except scale down number for a smaller population). Apart from a bunch of country sheebeens (house-cum-pub-cum-illegality sort of thing), it just didn't happen.

[johnnyboy]

You might be right, but then again smoking-induced diseases will cost at least some of that money to treat, and if it wasn't fags it'd be something else taxed. I'd split it between fags and fats personally.

Last time I heard the stats, smoking-related diseases cost the NHS £1.7bn and cigarette tax brought in £7.5-8bn.

1p in income tax usually raises between £2-2.5bn.

That statement has nothing to do with rights, it's about personal priorities. Anyone can get angry about war and tax because they affect everyone in a much more significant way than, if you happen to fall in that section of the population that (i) smokes and (ii) in public places indoors that (iii) is actually *angry* about moving to a different part while they do it then you're probably in a minority. Be honest, would you have taken time out of your day to travel down to London and protest about it?

Of course I am in a minority - smokers are in a minority.

Does that make my rights and the rights of other smokers worthless? Does it also make the rights of landlords worthless because the choice has been taken away from them about which legal products their customers can consume on their premises.

In truth, I thought the smoking ban would have been widely ignored because it's a civil law and there's no legal force which a landlord can use to eject a smoker from their pub. They can only request that they stop doing it.

Depends if every single one of those laws was prohibiting something, I suppose...

I see what you mean, but do you think this government would actually do that?

You can turn that around, since before 2007 I was not entitled to enjoy clean air with my pint in the pub. It's an awfully subjective point to try and argue with. The things I like doing (besides farting) don't impact on anyone else either.

On that point, I have a lot of sympathy with you. If one thing is true, the smoking ban has made me as a smoker realise that some people don't like the smell of burning tobacco leaves.

However, it never actually stopped you from going to pubs. In my experience, someone is either a pub person or they are not, regardless of the smoking issue. That's what is causing such devastation to the sector.

In my opinion, the sealed-off, ventilated smoking room would have been a brilliant compromise. Most European countries who have imposed a smoking ban have allowed venues to have a smoking area. Why not ours?

That's right. It's ZaNu Labour.

I appreciate it is hard for never-smokers to understand, but cigarette smoking while drinking is wonderful - it enhances the experience and relaxes you. It is a lot less relaxing and enhancing when you are standing in a freezing smoking terrace in Newcastle upon Tyne.

First up, I think calling me a hater's a bit much! It's just that, given the choice between a room with smoky air and a room with clean air, I'd prefer clean air. I didn't campaign for a smoking ban but I prefer what it's created. Yes, you can argue places now smell bad for other reasons, but that's shitty pubs for you and at least those smells don't carry a risk of disease.

Secondly, I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm trying to offer an explanation as to WHY these sorts of rooms would be pointless, not my opinions on how they should work.

Even the most ardent non-smokers I know believe that second-hand smoking causing diseases is rubbish. I think, in their hearts, everyone really knows it.

There are 41 different determinates that can cause cancer. Smoking is one of them. Shift-work is another. As is stress, diet, alcohol, and so on and so forth.

Passive smoking studies only take 4-5 of these determinates into account, so it is junk science. That said, even though it is junk, for every one of these studies showing a link, six more do not.

Did you know that, even though smoking has halved in the last 30 years, lung cancer rates have gone up 800%? As have asthma, heart disease, etc etc - all illnesses primarily blamed on smoking. Smoking is no good for you definitely - but there is NO risk from second-hand smoking and everyone knows it!!!

If you would rather smokers (who may well be your friends, family members, boyfriends, etc - people in your life who you love) should go outside in all conditions to enjoy a legal product and can't be given a sealed-off, ventilated indoor smoking area (like most of Euro countries), that does make you a hater, imo.

Knowing you for as long as I have, Sputty, I am really surprised you're so militant that the law should not be changed. I always thought you were a live-and-let-live guy.

People keep saying that, but 7 months in I've not seen anything shutting down round here. I've seen a lot more fenced off outdoor areas though. The question to my mind is: Do you have ANYTHING to substantiate that claim? I don't have anything here to dispute it but it sounds like fearmongering to me. Especially since in all likelihood it'll be smaller pubs that close, and by your maths there you're saying each one has tens of employees.

If you type in "pub closing smoking ban" to Google News UK, you'll see it for yourself.

After the ban in Ireland in 2004, a country of 3.5m people, 1,000 pubs closed. Many of the ones remaining operate very limited opening hours because of lack of custom.

Trade newspaper, the Morning Advertiser, details the early impact of the ban in England.

Pub companies' shares have halved since the ban came in. Everyone is suffering because of it.

The effect is felt more on rural and local pubs. I never use those personally - just city centre pubs - and I don't think they'll be as affected as much. That said, look at how the smokers come back when it's alright outside - there's often as many people out as in. When it's pissing down and freezing, the smokers stay home in general.

The smoking ban, primarily, together with cheap offy booze is killing the British pub.

The true way, the libertarian way, would have been to allow compromise, like virtually every other Euro country that has introduced a ban.

Don't leave though, I think I'm in like with you!

I would never leave my Sputty.

[johnnyboy]

Pubs will close in their thousands because of the ban.

That's the mantra we were given over here as well (except scale down number for a smaller population). Apart from a bunch of country sheebeens (house-cum-pub-cum-illegality sort of thing), it just didn't happen.

Sorry, but that's NOT true.

See this report from the Irish Independent where The Vintners' Federation of Ireland claim that 1,000 pubs have shut since the ban came in.

Just because YOU don't go to a certain type of pub does not mean it's alright for it to go out of existence. The country sheebeens, as you so patronisingly put it, have as much a right to a pub or social venue as you do. :roll:

[Lorns]

I'd like to go back to a time when i could go out for a meal in a pub and when i've finished eating and fancy a cigarette to be able to light up, after asking politely to the people on the next table if they had any objections if i smoke while they were still eating their meal. If they said no i'd light up, if they said they would rather i didn't i'd go to the bar. Just common courtesy really.

Oh and spangles and The Sweeney.

[cdd]

I was initially in favour of the smoking ban, but I have changed my mind somewhat now it has come into effect: even though I don't smoke, I am beginning to feel this sort of thing is just the thin end of the wedge. There are lots of activities that are unpleasant to others. Listening to music loud on headphones, for example. What next, will we ban them? Maybe we'll impose some governmental limit on how loud mp3 players can play music?

Even if you do believe all this business about passive smoking being damaging to your health, that's part of the deal when you go into a pub. Pubs are traditionally smoky places, if you really find smoking that unpleasant, don't go to pubs.

I reckon the reason this law had any real support behind it is because of the inconsiderate few smokers who behaved selfishly and irresponsibly. But there are lots of ways to be irresponsible, and our society seems to be in the habit of ruling out activities where there is even the mildest potential for abuse.

[noelfirl]

See this report from the Irish Independent where The Vintners' Federation of Ireland claim that 1,000 pubs have shut since the ban came in.

Sorry, but attributing the loss of "over 1000" pubs to the smoking ban is being overly simplistic. Even the article you posted alludes to changes in lifestyle, cheaper alcohol and the draconian drink driving laws (which are absolutely necessary) as being contributory factors. In addition, the VFI only represents 6,000 of the 13,000 licenced premises in this country. No commissioned report has of yet assessed the total number of licenced premises that have been closed. The VFI itself provides no press-release on it's site about the number of pubs closed, or the contributory factors, something I would of considered appropriate for them to do since they've (seemingly) had 1/6 their members lose their business. They do refer to an average business loss of 20-25% across pubs.

Just because YOU don't go to a certain type of pub does not mean it's alright for it to go out of existence. The country sheebeens, as you so patronisingly put it, have as much a right to a pub or social venue as you do. :roll:

They're traditional country houses. They're traditionally (or at least used to be) associated with the unlicenced sale of alcohol. They're traditionally called sheebeens.

[Sput]

Right, a lot of this debate is mixed up in personal and political opinion and I don't plan on arguing with that because it's futile. To the rest of your post I think the following should cover it:

I do like to think of myself as a live and let live guy, but the single caveat is that it doesn't make anyone else suffer. That counts for someone next to me sparking up and it sure as hell counts for the shitty band next door that keeps me awake till 1am. They'll be killed by me very soon for their sins, anyway I digress. My point is that, when someone else sparks up, I suffer, and you can't argue with that.

The situation now is that the person who gets the pleasure also has to suffer a bit for it, and I think that's fairer. The worst you get is coldness for 10 minutes when it's cold. Now...
- I metrolove that I don't have to wash everything I've been wearing after I go the pub now.
- I like that the fag burn scar on my hand I got in a crowded club won't be repeated without some serious effort.
- I LOVE that when I have a cough it's not exacerbated by the air in pubs. That's definitely true, but beyond that I'm not up to date with the research. You'll forgive me for ignoring your "junk science" comment JB, since I take you to be a slightly biased indicator! I'll refrain from making judgements about the health impact except for that the particles are obviously lung irritants.

I don't know that it hasn't stopped me going to pubs. I certainly get pissed off with the whole stinky clothes thing. I think there's less of a barrier to me wandering in during the day now. Nothing like a bit of daytime drinking to make the science go down smoother Having said that, I'd not be tremendously bothered if it were repealed. I just have a preference!

Incidentally, France's smoking ban is forcing people outside as has California's.

Oh, and the stuff you said about pubs closing is characteristic of what you accused the health studies of doing: you're only considering one variable - smoking ban and no smoking ban - when there are many more factors in pubs closing.

[Lorns]

I'm liking this metrolove thing. We gonna have a soppy Thursday?

[Sput]

MetroSuper Saturday is the next one, I believe.